m^m S^P^^m^^^^^^^^^^^^S^i 1 


m\ 






|||1 






1 


RP 


( x UST[TED SfATES ©FAMEMCA^) 


1 






m\ 



THE 



ECCLESIASTICAL 
HISTORY 



OF THE 



Secotta anfc &f)iriJ tipenturie*, 



ILLUSTRATED FROM THE WRITINGS OF TERTULLIAN. 



JOHN, BISHOP OF BRISTOL, 

MASTER OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE, 

AND 

REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF. CAMBRIDGE. 



SECOND EDITION. 



CAMBRIDGE : 

Printed by J. Smith, Printer to the Unirersity. 
FOR J. & J. J. DEIGHTON, CAMBRIDGE: 

AND C. & J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
1826 



.V» 



s >* 



PREFACE 

TO THE SECOND EDITION. 



Soon after the first edition of this work issued 
from the Press, I received a copy of a Ger- 
man work on the writings of Tertullian, 
published at Berlin in 1825, by Dr. August 
Neander, under the title of " Antignosticus 
Geist des Tertullians, &c." As it is probable 
that few other copies have yet reached Eng- 
land, a short account of its object and con- 
tents may not be unacceptable to the reader. 

The learned author states in his Preface, 
that he is engaged in writing an Ecclesiastical 
History of the first three centuries, a portion 
of which will be occupied by an enquiry into 
the different forms under which the Christian 
Doctrine developed itself; in other words, into 
the different doctrinal and practical systems 
which arose during that period. The authors 
of those systems he divides into two classes, 



IV 



the Idealists and the Realists; the Idealists 
he again divides into the Ultra, from whom 
the Gnostics took their rise, and the Moderate, 
who formed the Alexandrian School. Of the 
Realists, he conceives Tertullian to be the pro- 
per representative. His object, therefore, is, 
by an analysis of Tertullian's writings, to pre- 
sent his readers with an accurate view of the 
Realist system. He had done the same with 
reference to the Gnostic system, in a work 
which I have not seen. 

In pursuing this object, he classes the writ- 
ings of Tertullian under three heads. 

I. Those, which were occasioned by the 
relation in which the Christians of Tertullian's 
day stood to the heathen; which were either 
composed in defence of Christianity and in 
confutation of heathenism, or referred to the 
sufferings and conduct of Christians in time 
of persecution, and to their intercourse with 
the heathen. 

II. Those, which related to the Christian 
Life, and to the Discipline of the Church. 

III. Tertullian's Dogmatical and Polemical 
works. 



I. Under the first head he mentions, as com- 
posed before Tertullian's secession from- the 
Church, 

The Tract ad Martyres. 

— *de Spectaculis. 

de Idololatria. 

The two Books ad Nationes. 

2 The Apology. 

The Tract de Testimonio Animas ; 

1 I have classed the Tracts de Spectaculis and de Ido- 
lolatria, among the works probably composed by Tertullian 
after he became a Montanist; nor do Dr. Neander's argu- 
ments appear to me of sufficient weight to establish a dif- 
ferent conclusion. He supposes these Tracts to have been 
occasioned by the public festivities which took place after 
the defeat of Niger and Albinus (pp. 14, 82.); and contends, 
that Tertullian, if he had been then a Montanist, would, 
instead of resorting exclusively to arguments drawn from 
Scripture, have also appealed to the authority of the New 
Prophecy (p. 26). But the references to passing events are 
of too general a character to warrant us in deciding posi- 
tively upon the time when the Treatises were written: and 
Dr. Neander himself admits (p. 112), that in the Tract de 
Spectaculis Tertullian uses stronger language respecting the 
incompatibility of the military life with the profession of 
Christianity, than in the Tract de Corona, which was cer- 
tainly composed after he became a Montanist. This single 
fact, in my opinion, outweighs all the arguments on the 
other side. 

2 Dr. Neander supposes the two Books ad Nationes to 
have been anterior to the Apology, respecting the date of 
which he agrees with Mosheim (pp. 58. 76 note). He 
infers also (p. 79) from the answer to the charge of unpro- 
fitableness brought against the Christians by their enemies, 
that Tertullian could not have imbibed the ascetic spirit 
of Montanism, when he wrote the Apology. But the 

validity 



VI 

as composed after Tertullian became a Mon- 
tanist, 

5 The Tract de Corona. 

de Fuga in Persecutions 

Scorpiace. 

The Tract ad Scapulam. 

II. Under the second head, Dr. Neander 
classes 

The Tract de 4 Patientia. 

— _ — de 5 Oratione. 

de Baptismo. 

de Pcenitentia. 



The two Books ad Uxorem. 

The two Books de Cultu Fceminarum. 

among the works composed by Tertullian be- 
fore he became a Montanist. 

validity of this inference may be questioned; as it is cer- 
tain that Tertullian sometimes varied his language with his 
object. 

3 The largess alluded to in the Tract de Corona was, 
according to Dr. Neander, that given to the military on 
account of the victories of Severus over the Parthians (p. 114.) 
If this supposition is correct, we must assign the year 204? 
as the probable date of the Tract. 

4 Dr. Neander remarks, that a comparison of the modes 
in which Tertullian applies the parables of the Lost Sheep, 
and of the Prodigal Son, in the Tract de Patientia, c. 12* 
and in that de Pudicitia, c. 9« will prove the former to have 
been written before his secession from the Church (p. 168). 

5 Dr. Neander considers the additional chapters of the 
Tract de Oratione genuine, 



Vll 

The Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis. 

— de Monogamia. 

— — - de Pudicitia. 

_ de Jejuniis. 

_ _ de 6 Virginibus velandis. 

___ de 7 Pallio; 

among those written, after he recognised the 
prophecies of Montanus. 

III. Of the works which fall under the 
third head, Dr. Neander thinks, that one only 
was written before Tertullian became a Mon- 
tanist — The Tract de Prascriptione Hasretico- 
rum. The rest were written by him when a 
Montanist. 

The five Books against Marcion. 
The Tract adversus Valentinianos. 

6 From the following passage in the second chapter of this 
Tract, (Sed eas ego Ecclesias proposal quas et ipsi Apostoli 
vel Apostolici viri condiderunt, et puto ante quosdam. Habent 
igitur et illse eandem consuetudinis auctoritatem, tempora 
et antecessors opponunt magis quam posters istae,) and from 
other incidental expressions, Dr. Neander infers, that the 
custom, against which it was directed, prevailed in the Church 
of Rome. 

7 With respect to this Tract, Dr. Neander interprets the 
expression, Praesentis imperii triplex virtus, Deo tot Augustis 
in unum favente, of Severus, Caracalla, and Geta, and 
supposes the Tract to have been composed about the year 
208. He conjectures also, that Tertullian was induced, after 
the death of his wife, to adopt the ascetic mode of life, and 
in consequence, to wear the Pallium, the peculiar dress of 
the d<TKtjrai (p. 310.) 



vm 

The Tract de Carne Christi. 

— de Resurrectione Carnis. 

— ad versus Hermogenem. 

de Anima. 

8 adversus Praxeam. 

9 adversus Judasos. 

Dr. Neander gives a more or less detailed 

8 Dr.* Neander thinks with Blondel (p. 487-) that the 
Bishop of Rome mentioned in the first chapter of the Tract 
against Praxeas, was Eleutherus : Allix was disposed rather 
to fix upon Victor. 

9 On this Tract Dr. Neander has written a short dis- 
sertation, the object of which is to prove that the ninth 
and following chapters are spurious. In our remarks upon 
Sender's Theory respecting Tertullian's works, we stated 
that he grounded an argument on the fact, that a consider- 
able portion of the third Book against Marcion is repeated 
in the Tract against the Jews. Dr. Neander draws a dif- 
ferent inference from this fact. He observes, that many of 
the passages thus repeated, however suitable to the contro- 
versy between Tertullian and Marcion, are wholly out of 
their place in a controversy with a Jew. He concludes, there- 
fore, that Tertullian, having proceeded as far as the quo- 
tation from Isaiah in the beginning of the ninth chapter 
of the Tract against the Jews, from some unknown cause 
left the work unfinished; and that the remainder of the 
Tract was afterwards added by some person, who thought 
that he could not do better than complete it, by annexing 
what Tertullian had said on the same passage of Isaiah in 
the third Book against Marcion, with such slight variations 
as the difference of circumstances required. The instances 
alleged by Dr. Neander, in proof of this position, are un- 
doubtedly very remarkable; but, if the concluding chapters 
of the Tract are spurious, no ground seems to be left 
for asserting that the genuine portion was posterior to the 
third Book against Marcion; and none consequently for assert- 
ing that it was written by a Montanist. 



IX 



analysis of each Tract; and occasionally intro- 
duces (most frequently in considering the works 
included under the last head) the sentiments 
of other Ecclesiastical writers on the points 
under discussion- — a proceeding foreign from 
the plan which I had proposed to myself. 
He is always learned and ingenious; but 
not altogether free from that love of hypo- 
thesis, for which the German writers are 
remarkable. 

There is an Appendix to the work, con- 
taining two Dissertations ; one on the last part 
of the Tract adversus Judaeos ; the other on 
Tertullian's doctrine respecting the Lord's Sup- 
per, which Dr. Neander supposes to be some- 
thing intermediate between that of Justin and 
Irenseus, whom he asserts to have maintained 
(he does not allege any passages in proof 
of the assertion) the doctrine of Consubstan- 
tiation — and the doctrine of Origen, who 
did not allow that any divine influence was 
united to the outward signs as such, but 
thought that the object of sense was the sym- 
bol of the object of the understanding, only 
to the worthy receiver; though, in addition 
to that symbolical relation, he conceived a 
sanctifying influence to be united with the 
whole rite, in the case of those who are capa- 



X 

ble of receiving that influence. Dr. Neander 
thinks, that to eat the flesh and drink the blood 
of Christ, meant, in Tertullian's view of the 
subject, to appropriate to ourselves the divine 
\dyos who appeared in the nature of man, and to 
enter into a living union with him through faith. 
He thinks also, that in the words, Caro 
corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et 
anima de Deo saginetur, Tertullian intended 
to say that, while the body, in a supernatural 
manner, comes into contact with the body of 
Christ, the soul receives into itself the divine 
life of Christ. Dr. Neander justly remarks, 
that on other occasions Tertullian speaks, as 
if the bread and wine were merely represen- 
tative signs of the body and blood of Christ. 
It may be doubted, therefore, whether in 
arguing upon the above expressions, he has 
made sufficient allowance for the peculiarities 
of Tertullian's style. If, however, he is cor- 
rect, Tertullian must be classed with those who 
maintain a real presence of Christ's body in 
the Eucharist, but in a spiritual, not in a 
gross corporeal sense. Dr. Neander appears 
himself to consider the bread and wine as 
mere symbols. 

In the body of Dr. Neander's work, are 
also two Disquisitions ; one on a passage in the 



XI 

third chapter of the Tract de Corona, where 
Tertullian speaks of various customs observed 
in the Church on the authority of Tradition; 
the other, on an obscure passage in the 
fourteenth chapter of the Tract de Jejuniis, 
from which Dr. Neander infers, that the prac- 
tice of fasting on a Saturday already existed 
in the Western Church. 

If the reader will compare Dr. Neander's 
classification of Tertullian's writings with that 
which I have ventured to suggest, he will 
find that the difference between us is not 
great ; and with respect to some of the Tracts 
on which we differ, the learned author ex- 
presses himself with great diffidence. He was 
too well aware of the dubious character of 
the proofs on which his conclusions necessarily 
rest, to adopt a more decided language. I was 
myself restrained by similar considerations, from 
hazarding any positive decision of many of the 
controverted points, connected with Tertullian's 
life and writings. It would have been no dif- 
ficult task to bring forward the different pas- 
sages produced by preceding writers upon 
those points; to add others of equally, or 
more, doubtful application to the subject in 
debate; and after the parade of a formal dis- 
cussion, to pronounce between the contending 



Xll 

parties. Such a proceeding would have been 
very imposing, and have carried with it an 
appearance of great learning and profundity ; 
but it would at last have been only solemn 
trifling. When the facts are not merely scanty, 
10 but susceptible of different interpretations, it 
seems to follow as a necessary consequence, 
that the mind must remain in a state of sus- 
pense: and an author ought at least to escape 
censure for avowing doubts which he really 
feels. Diffidence may imply a defect both 
in the moral and intellectual character; but it 
is surely less offensive in itself, and less 
likely to be injurious in its consequences, than 
that presumptuous rashness, which ventures 
to deliver peremptory decisions, where there 



10 Yoy instance, Dr. Neander asserts that Tertullian had 
once been a Heathen, and produces, in support of the 
assertion, the first sentence in the Tract de Pcenitentia, 
(p. 3.) Pcenitentiam, hoc genus hominum, quod et ipsi retro 
fuimus, &c. He afterwards (p. 5.) alludes to the passages 
in the Tracts de Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 7- and de Mo- 
nogamia, c. 12. (Nonne et Laici Sacerdotis sumus? and 
Sed quum extollimur et inflamur adversus Clerum, tunc unum 
omnes sumus, &c.) which have been alleged, in order to 
disprove the fact of Tertullian's admission into the Priest- 
hood; but thinks that they do not disprove it. In both 
cases, Tertullian speaks in the first person and in the plural 
number; yet in the former, we are to suppose that he 
spoke in his own, in the latter, in an assumed character. 
Surely there is something very arbitrary in these deci- 
sions- 



Xlll 

are scarcely materials even for forming an 
opinion. 

I was naturally anxious to ascertain the 
opinion of Dr. Neander, respecting the in- 
stances of the exercise of miraculous powers 
mentioned by Tertullian, and the accounts of 
visions which occur in his writings. The 
learned author accounts for n the story of the 
female who came back from the theatre under 
the influence of a daemoniacal possession, by 
supposing that, being conscience-stricken, she 
returned the answer recorded by Tertullian, 
under the persuasion that she was possessed by 
an evil spirit who made use of her organs of 
speech. The story of the man, who was chas- 
tised in a vision, because his servants had sus- 
pended garlands on his door in his absence, 
may, Dr. Neander thinks, be accounted for 
12 on psychological principles. The view which 

II De Spectaculis, c. 26. (p. 31 note.) 

12 De Idololatria, c. 15. (p. 54.) I do not perfectly com- 
prehend the meaning of this observation. It is very easy to 
conceive, that a man of a superstitious temper might have 
been so affected on finding that his servants had complied 
with what he deemed an idolatrous practice, as to dream 
that he was severely chastised for their misconduct. But 
Tertullian's words convey the idea that the chastisement 
was real. Scio fratrem per visionem eadem nocte castigatum 
graviter quod januam ejus, subito annuntiatis gaudiis publicis, 
servi coronassent. Are we to suppose, that the impression, 
made on the mind by the dream, affected the body, and 

produced 



XIV 

he takes of the subject of visions is, that the 
fermentation at first produced by Christianity 
in the nature of man was accompanied by 
many extraordinary phenomena, not likely to 
occur in a similar manner at all times. 
New powers were imparted to human nature ; 
and those which had been before concealed 
were brought into action. Moreover, the ne- 
cessities of the infant Church called for many 
unusual interpositions of Providence. Great 
caution would of course be requisite, in form- 
ing a judgement respecting those phenomena, 
since it would be easy to confound that which 
was natural with that which was divine; and 
into this error the turn of Tertullian's mind 
would render him peculiarly liable to fall, by 
disposing him to regard all such appearances 
as divine revelations. In a subsequent part 
of his work, Dr. Neander mentions the 1S story 
of the female to whom the soul was exhibited 
in a corporeal shape — as an instance of Tertul- 
lian's readiness to consider visions as commu- 
nications from heaven. Although Dr. Neander 
has not expressed himself decidedly, I infer 
from the general tenor of his observations, that 
he objects altogether to the notion, that the 

produced the same feeling of soreness as if the beating had 
been real ? 

13 De Anima, c. 9- (p- 4-6'5.) 



XV 

exercise of miraculous powers was intended to 
be confined to any particular persons, or to any 
particular age. 14 He supposes Tertullian to 
have asserted, that the possession of the extra- 
ordinary gifts of the Spirit was the peculiar 
characteristic of an Apostle; and regards this 
assertion as a proof of Montanism. He speaks 
also of the impropriety of confining the cha- 
rismata to the Apostolic age. To what I have 
before said on this disputed subject I wili 
now add, that we usually infer what will be 
the future course of the divine government 
from considering what it has been; and thus 
Christians living towards the end of the second 
century — who had either themselves conversed, 
or had heard the accounts of others who had 
conversed, with men who had witnessed the 
exercise of miraculous powers — could not be 
justly charged with credulity, for expecting 
the continuance of the same powers in the 
Church. Centuries have since elapsed, during 
which no miraculous narrative deserving of 
credit can be produced. Our case, therefore, is 
widely different. They who contend that, be- 

14 The passage on which Dr. Neander builds this in- 
ference, is in the Tract de Exhortatione, c. 3. Proprie enim 
Apostoli Spiritum Sanctum habent in operibus prophetiae, 
et efficacia virtutum, documentisque linguarum ; non ex parte, 
quod caeteri. p. 242. 



XVI 

cause the first teachers of the Gospel were 
endowed with miraculous powers in order to 
prove their divine commission, it is not un- 
reasonable to suppose, that similar powers would 
be imparted to those, who in subsequent ages 
went forth to convert heathen nations, may 
fairly be called upon to produce an instance, 
subsequent to the times of the immediate suc- 
cessors of the Apostles, in which such powers 
have been actually conferred. 

Dr. Neander's notions respecting the autho- 
rity ascribed by the early Christians to Tradi- 
tion seem to coincide with my own. He says, 
" these two fountains, of the knowledge of the 
doctrine of faith— the collection of the Apo- 
stolic writings and oral Tradition— sent forth 
streams, flowing by the side of each other 
through all communities which agreed in the 
essentials of Christianity; and especially through 
the communities which were of Apostolic 
foundation. But as the stream of Tradition 
necessarily became more turbid, in proportion 
as the distance from the Apostolic times in- 
creased, the writings of the Apostles were 
designed by Providence to be an unadulte- 
rated source of divine doctrine for every age. 
Though on some occasions the Christians of 
those days might appeal solely to the autho- 



XV11 

rity of Tradition, they uniformly maintained, 
that the doctrine of Christianity, in all its 
parts, might be deduced from Holy Writ." 
(p. 312.) 

The spirit, in which Dr. Neander's remarks 
on Tertullian are conceived, is widely dif- 
ferent from that in which it has been fashion- 
able of late years to think and speak of the 
Fathers. M. Barbeyrac, whose views were 
directed to the systematic developement of the 
principles of Ethics, looking only at Tertul- 
lian's defects, regarded him as an author who 
was incapable either of thinking naturally, or 
preserving a just medium ; who delivered him- 
self up to the guidance of his African ima- 
gination, which magnified and confounded all 
the objects presented to it, and did not allow 
him to consider any one with attention ; who 
in short, had disfigured the morality of the 
Gospel by his extravagancies, and thereby in- 
flicted a serious injury on Christianity itself. 
Dr. Neander, on the contrary, 15 to whose 

15 I have, in the fourth chapter of the present work, ex- 
amined certain passages of Tertullian's writings, from which 
it has been inferred, that he did not recognise the distinc- 
tion between the Clergy and Laity. Dr. Neander accounts 
(p. 204.) for the apparent inconsistency in his language, by 
supposing that he stood on what may be termed the boundary 
mark of two periods ; the period of original simple Christianity, 
and the period of the establishment of a system of Church- 

h authority. 



xvni 

mind the image of the Christian community, 
as it existed under the immediate superin- 
tendance of the Apostles, appears to be con- 
tinually present, discovers in Tertullian the 
working of that spirit which animated the early 



authority. During the former period, there was a perfect 
equality among Christians ; no distinction of orders ; all were 
Priests. The separation of the Clergy from the Laity, and 
the gradation of ranks among the former, were subsequently 
introduced by injudicious attempts to transfer the institu- 
tions of the Mosaic to the Christian dispensation. This view 
of the subject frequently occurs in Dr. Neander's work : 
but I must confess my inability to reconcile it either with 
the statements contained in the Acts of the Apostles and 
in the Epistles, or with the natural course of things. If 
the Church of Christ on earth was in fact what it is in 
theory, the distinction between the Clergy and Laity would 
doubtless be unnecessary. But where are we to look for the 
period of original simple Christianity, of which Dr. Neander 
speaks? Even the Apostles found themselves under the 
necessity of appointing particular orders of men for the 
accomplishment of particular objects; and of making new 
regulations in order to correct the abuses which from time 
to time sprang up. The distinction, therefore, of the Clergy 
from the Laity, and of Orders among the Clergy, arose out 
of the necessities of what Dr. Neander elsewhere (p. 341.) 
calls, that frail compound of spiritual and sensual — human 
nature ; not out of any designed imitation of the Mosaic in- 
stitutions. After it had once been established, we might 
naturally expect to find the language of the Old Testament 
respecting the Jewish Priesthood applied to the Christian: 
at first only in the way of analogy, but subsequently per- 
haps to promote the interested views of ambitious men. 
Dr. Neander has pointed out a remarkable instance of the 
application of the phraseology of the Old Testament to 
the celebration of the Eucharist, in the Tract de Oratione, 
c 14, (p. 184 note.) 



XIX 

converts; and regarding him as a man whose 
whole soul was absorbed in his desire to pro- 
mote the practical influence of the Gospel, is 
little disposed to speak with harshness of errors, 
which arose from the overflowings of Christ- 
ian zeal. Looking rather to the internal feel- 
ing, than to the terms in which it is expressed, 
he discerns matter for commendation in pas- 
sages, in which others have found nothing but 
extravagance and absurdity. The concluding 
passage of the Tract de Spectaculis, which called 
forth Gibbon's animadversions, appears 16 to 
Dr. Neander to contain a beautiful specimen 
of lively faith and Christian confidence ; though 
he wishes that the vehemence of Tertullian's 
zeal had been tempered by a larger infusion 
of Christian love. He ventures even to defend 
the celebrated declaration, 17 Certum est, quia 
impossibile, which has contributed more than 
any other circumstance, to bring Tertullian's 
writings into discredit; and says with great 
truth, that how strangely soever it may sound 
when separated from the context, yet when 
taken in connexion with what precedes, it is 
only an exaggerated mode of stating, that a 
Christian readily admits, on the authority of 
Revelation, that which men, who rely solely on 

16 p. 34. 

17 De Came Christi, c. 4. p. 394, 

b2 



XX 

the conclusions of their own reason, pronounce 
impossible. There can be no doubt that Dr. 
Neander has entered more deeply into Ter- 
tullian's character, and has, in consequence, 
been enabled to form a juster estimate of 
his merits and defects, than the Philosophical 
Jurist or the Sceptical Historian. Yet there 
are, perhaps, occasions, in which Dr. Neander 
himself has interpreted TertuLlian's expressions 
too strictly ; and, 18 though aware of the 
difficulty of referring the opinions of a man, 
on whom the feeling of the moment had so 
much influence, to general principles, he has 
not always been able to resist the temptation 
to generalize ; and has in consequence ex- 
tracted from TertuLlian's words a train of 
thought of which he himself was probably 
never conscious, 

I will now proceed to mention the prin- 
cipal additions and alterations which have been 
made in this second edition. 

In Chapter I. note 171. the reader will 
find a passage disproving Sender's assertion, 
that Eusebius has never mentioned Miltiades 
as a writer against the Heretics. The passage 
is in the Eccl. Hist. L v. c. 28. 

18 p 380. 



XXI 

In Chapter III. p. 176. I had given, an 
erroneous account of the exordium of the 
Tract de Testimonio Animas, having sub- 
stituted in the place of the argument there 
urged by Tertullian, that which he uses 
in the passage in the Apology, to which I 
had referred in the note. The error is now 
corrected. 

In Chapter V. note 211. (note 209. first 
Edition) the reader will find an attempt to 
reconcile the apparent inconsistencies in Ter- 
tullian's language, respecting the state of the 
soul during the interval between its separa- 
tion from the body and the general resurrec- 
tion. 

In Chapter VI. p. 457. (p. 453. first Edition,) 
I have inserted a note containing a reference 
to the custom, which existed in Tertullian's 
time, of reserving a portion of the consecrated 
bread, and eating it at home before every 
other food. Dr. Neander thinks that this cus- 
tom gave rise to the practice of administering 
the communion only in one kind. He observes 
also, that the practice of daily communion ap- 
pears from the writings of Tertullian, to have 
then prevailed, at least in the African Church. 
See de Idololatria, c. 7- 



XX11 

There are some minor alterations, which it 
is unnecessary to specify; and at the end 
of the Volume will be found a list of Ad- 
denda, some of which have been suggested 
to me by the perusal of Dr, Neander's work. 
Notwithstanding all the care which I have been 
able to bestow, the learned reader will doubt- 
less discover additional errors and omissions. 
One mistake has, however, been imputed to 
me, of which I have not been guilty. I have 
never mentioned, incidentally or otherwise, that 
Stephen, Bishop of Rome, was contemporary 
with Tertullian. 

In the Introduction to the present work, 
I have stated, that the object which I proposed 
to myself in my Lectures on the writings of 
Tertullian was, to employ them, as far as they 
could be employed, in filling up Mosheim's out- 
line of Ecclesiastical History. After this ex- 
plicit declaration, it may appear almost un- 
necessary to add, that I never intended to 
compose an Ecclesiastical History of the 
second and third centuries. My labours were 
directed to an humbler object — to assist in 
collecting materials for a future historian of 
the Church. My persuasion has always been, 
that a good Ecclesiastical History of that, or 
of any other period will never be composed, 



XX111 

until the works of each writer, who flourished 
during the period, have been examined; and 
the information which they supply, collected 
and arranged under different heads. I did not 
mean to propose Mosheim's arrangement as the 
best which could be devised; I followed it, 
because his history is that which is in most 
general use among theological students in this 
country. I deem it also most essential to the 
successful execution of such a plan, that the 
testimony of each author should be kept as 
distinct as possible. If I may form a judge- 
ment from Dr. Neander's Preface, his view 
of the subject nearly coincides with my own. 
He there states, that he has published a 
volume on the Gnostic system, which mxist 
necessarily include an examination of the 
work of Irenseus ; a friend, at his request, 
is employed on the writings of Cyprian : in the 
volume, of which I have now given a short 
account, we have the spirit of Tertullian, the 
representative of the Realists ; there remain, 
therefore, for consideration, only the Moderate 
Idealists of the Alexandrian school, whose opi- 
nions will be found in the writings of Clemens 
and Origen. Having thus prepared the way, 
by analysing the works of the five principal 
authors of the second and third centuries, the 
learned author will proceed to the completion 



XXIV 



of his Ecclesiastical History of that period. 
With the design of facilitating the composition 
of a similar History, I had, in the fulfilment 
of the duties of my office, before I lectured 
on the writings of Tertullian, examined the 
writings of the Fathers who preceded him ; 
whether I shall, at any future period, be able 
to lay before the Public the result of the 
examination, must depend upon the time which 
I can spare from other avocations. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 
NTRODUCTION ■ 1 



CHAP. I. 

On Tertullian and his Writings. 

Jerome's account of Tertullian 5 

Whether Tertullian ever was a Presbyter ? 8 

Whether a Presbyter at Rome or at Carthage ? 9 

Whether originally a Gentile ? 11 

His adoption of Montanism 12 

Account of Montanus from Eusebius ib. 

* from Epiphanius 17 

of the peculiar opinions of Montanus 19 

of his pretensions. The variation in Mosheim's 

language on this subject 22 

His Discourses probably committed to writing 30 

The notion that the Apostles did not publicly teach the 

Doctrine of the Gospel in its full perfection 32 

This notion supported by the authority of Clemens Alex- 

andrinus < 33 

Causes of Tertullian's secession from the Church 36 

Importance of his Writings ib. 

Unsuccessful attempts to arrange them in chronological 

order .^ 39 

Date of the Tract de Pallio ib, 

' of the first Book against Marcion 42 

of the Tract de Monogamia, and the two Books 

ad Nationes ib. 

Difficulty of ascertaining what works were, and what 

were not, written before Tertullian's secession from 

the Church 43 

The Tract de Pcenitentia 45 



XXVI CONTENTS. 

Page 

The Tract de Oratione 4-6 

■ — de Baptismo 47 

The two Tracts ad Uxorem 48 

The Tract ad Martyres ib. 

— de Patientia 49 

adversus Judaeos 50 

• • de Praescriptione Haereticorum ib. 

• adversus Hermogenem 51 

The Apology 52 

The two Books ad Nationes 54 

The Tract de Testimonio Animae 55 

— • ad Scapulam , ib. 

Tracts containing decisive marks of Montanism. De 
Corona, de Anima, de Virginibus velandis, de Resur- 
rectione Carnis, against Praxeas, Books I. III. IV. 
and V. against Marcion, the Tracts de Fuga in 
Persecutione, de Monogamia, de Jejuniis, de Pudi- 

citia , . . 56 

Mistake of Gibbon respecting the Tract de Corona 57 

The second Book against Marcion 58 

The Tract de Carne Christi ib. 

Scorpiace , ib. 

The Tract against the Valentinians 59 

de Spectaculis ib. 

— ■ de Idololatria 60 

The first Book de Cultu Fceminarum ib. 

The Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis ib. 

Classification of Tertullian's works 6l 

Works not now extant 63 

The Tract de Paradiso ib. 

■ de Spe Fidelium 64 

The six Books de Ecstasi, and the seventh against Apol- 

lonius ib. 

The Tract against the Apelliaci ib. 

■ against Hermogenes, de Censu Animae ib. 

. de Vestibus Aaron ib. 

. ad Amicum Philosophum ib. 

Tracts, the titles of which appear in the Codex Ago- 

bardi. 65 

Learning, style, and latinity of Tertullian ................ ib. 



CONTENTS. XXV11 

rage 

Examination of Semler's objections to the genuineness 
of Tertullian's writings "9 



CHAP. II. 

On the External History of the Church. 

The wide diffusion of Christianity in Tertullian's day .... 91 
Whether to be ascribed to the exercise of miraculous 

powers 95 

Instances of the exercise of miraculous powers recorded 

by Tertullian.... 102 

Instances of visions 103 

The miracle of the thundering Legion 105 

The proposal of Tiberius to receive Christ among the 

Deities of Rome 110 

Two causes of the rapid propagation of Christianity, 
assigned by Mosheim— Translations of the New Tes- 
tament, and Apologies composed in defence of Christ- 
ianity 112 

Concerning the Laws which applied to the Christians, 

as a Sect 114 

Sketch of the Apology 119 

Gibbon's remarks on the early Apologists for Christ- 
ianity 133 

Sufferings of the early Christians, and honors annexed 

to martyrdom 137 

Account of the Tract de Fuga in Persecutione 147 

ad Martyres 150 

■ of the Scorpiace 151 

General observations on the subject of martyrdom 154 

Allusion to the duration of Christ's ministry 158 

— to the Census of Augustus and our Lord's 

descent from David through Mary 1 59 

to the miraculous darkness at the Crucifixion. l6l 

Condition of the Jews in Tertullian's time 162 

Appendix to Chapter II. containing extracts from the 
late Dr. Hey's unpublished Lectures on Ecclesiastical 
History , 162 



XX Vlll CONTENTS. 

CHAP. III. 

On the State of Letters and Philosophy. 

Page 

Account of the Tract de Testiraonio Animas 176 

Remarks on the prevalent disposition to undervalue the 

argument a posteriori 182 

Account of the Treatise de Anima, 190 

Tertullian's opinions respecting Angels and Daemons 214 



CHAP. IV. 

On the Government of the Church. 

Tertullian's account of the Christian assemblies 222 

On the distinction between the Clergy and Laity 223 

Tertullian's notion of the origin of the Church 229 

On the distinction of Orders among the Clergy 232 

Tertullian's account of the origin of the Episcopal Office 

and of its Duties 233 

On the independence of the Apostolic Churches 236 

On the titles Pontifex Maximus, Episcopus Episcoporuin, 

Papa 238 

On the Order of Readers (Lectores) and of Widows 242 

On Synods or Councils 244 

On the distinction between Catechumeni and Fideles 245 

On the Penitential Discipline of the Church 251 

On the distinction between Mortal and Venial Sins 254 

Silence of Tertullian on the subject of Auricular Con- 
fession 257 

Christian Authors mentioned by Tertullian ib. 



CHAP. V. 

On the Doctrijne of the Church. 

The consideration of the first and second Articles of 
our Church deferred , * < 2-62 



CONTENTS. XXIX 



Article III. Christ's descent into hell 263 

IV. The Resurrection of Christ 268 

Account of the Tract de Carne Christi ib. 

- de Resurrectione Carnis 272 

Article V. deferred 289 

VI. The sufficiency of Holy Scriptures for sal- 
vation ib. 

On the Tradition of the Church 290 

TertuUian's testimony to the Canon of Scripture 307 

• account of the Septuagint Version 309 

of t^ Book of Enoch 310 

On the expression Authenticoe Liter w 311 

— » Epistle to the Hebrews 313 

Travels of Paul and Thecla 314 

Whether the Canon of Scripture was determined by the 

authority of councils ? ib. 

Remarks on the work entitled Palaeoromaica 315 

On the words Instrumentum, Testamentunx, Digesta... 317 

■ title of the Epistle to the Ephesians 318 

Quotations not found in Scripture ib. 

Article VII. Of the Old Testament 320 

■ VIII. The three Creeds. 321 

IX. Original Sin 324 

Two strange opinions of Tertullian 330 

Article X. Of Free-will ib. 

XI. Of the Justification of Man ... 334 

XII. Of good Works 337 

XIII. Of Works before Justification ib. 

-XIV. Of Works of Supererogation 338 

• XV. Of Christ alone without Sin ib. 

XVI. Of Sin after Baptism 339 

• XVII. Of Predestination and Election 341 

— XVIII. Of obtaining Eternal Salvation only in 

the name of Christ 345 

XIX. Of the Church 346 

XX. Of the Authority of the Church ' ib. 

XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils ib. 

■ XXII. Of Purgatory ib. 

Pearson's notion respecting the perpetual Virginity .... 349 

Article XXIII. Of ministering in the Congregation 350 



XXX CONTENTS, 

Page 

Article XXIV. On speaking in the Congregation in a 

known tongue • • • 354 

XXV. Of the Sacraments 256 

■ ■ XXVI. Of the unworthiness of the Ministers 

which hindereth not the effect of the Sacraments.. 358 

The consideration of Articles 27, 28, 30, deferred 360 

Article XXXII. Of the Marriage of Priests ib. 

XXXIII. Of excommunicate Persons, &c 362 

— XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the Church 363 

XXXV. XXXVI. omitted ib. 

— - XXXVII. Of Civil Magistrates ib. 

XXXVIII. Of Christian Men's Goods, &c. .. . . .. 365 

■ XXXIX. Of a Christian Man's Oath ib. 

On the Millennium 66 

On the final Salvation of all men 368 

On the approaching end of the World ib. 

Examination of Mosheim's Chapter on the Doctrine of 

the Church in the second Century 370 

Examination of M. Barbeyrac's strictures on Tertullian, 

in his Traite de la Morale des Peres 380 



CHAP. VI. 

On the Ceremonies used in the Church. 

Forms observed in Prayer 406 

Account of the Tract de Oratione 409 

Whether the Public Prayers were extemporaneous ? . . . . 411 
Sunday, or the Lord's Day, and the Sabbath, kept as 

days of rejoicing , 412 

Christmas Day, Easter, and Whitsuntide 413 

Commemoration of the days on which the Martyrs suf- 
fered 414 

Account of the Tract de Jejuniis 415 

Fasts observed in the Church 417 

■ by the Montanists 420 

Observations on Fasting; 422 

o ............ 

■ on the Monastic mode of life 425 



CONTENTS, XXXI 

Page 

On the Agape, or Feast of Charity 428 

On Vigils, and Processions 430 

Article XXVII. Account of Tertullian's Tract de Bap- 

tismo • • 431 

On the forms observed in Baptism 434 

On the Baptism of John 437 

Whether Tertullian was acquainted with the Jewish Bap- 
tism of Proselytes ? 439 

Whether the Apostles were baptised ? 442 

On the necessity of Baptism to Salvation 444 

On Heretical Baptism, and the propriety of rebaptising 445 

On the Baptism of Martyrdom ib. 

On the right of the Laity to baptise 446 

On Infant Baptism 449 

On the seasons for administering Baptism 45 1 

Article XXVIII. On the Eucharist ib, 

On Transubstantiation 453 

Article XXX. On Communion in both kinds 457 

On Marriage 458 

On Extreme Unction 459 

On the sign of the Cross 460 

On Exorcism and Exsufflation 46l 

On the custom of announcing certain hours of the day ib, 



CHAP. VII. 

Concerning the Heresies and Divisions which 
troubled the church. 

Account of the Tract ad versus Judseos . . 463 

The Nazarenes and Ebionites . . 474 

The Philosophical Heretics 475 

Saturninus — Cerdo — Marcion 478 

Account of the five Books against Marcion 480 

Lucan, Severus, Blastus, Apelles 509 

Bardesanes, Tatian* Basilides, Carpocrates 512 

Valentinus 513 

Account of the Tract against the Valentinians ib. 



XXX11 CONTENTS. 

Page 

The Followers of Valentinus 524 

The Cainites 525 

The Grecian Heretics, Artemon — Theodotus — Praxeas. . 526 

Account of the Tract against Praxeas 527 

Comparison of Tertullian's opinions with those declared 
in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth Articles of our 
Church, and in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds . 552 

Titles applied to Christ 566 

On the corruptibility of Christ's Flesh, his ubiquity, 

and personal appearance ib. 

Hermogenes — account of the Tract against him ...... 567 

Simon Magus 578 

Menander the Samaritan 580 

The Nicolaitans 581 

Heretics who asserted the mortality of the Soul ib. 

General observations ib. 



INTRODUCTION. 



The following pages contain the substance 
of a Course of Lectures delivered by the 
Author, as Regius Professor of Divinity, in 
the Lent and Easter Terms of 1825. He 
had previously delivered two Courses, on the 
writings of the Fathers: and the plan which 
he then pursued was, first to give a short 
account of the author's life ; next an analysis 
of each of his works; and lastly a selection of 
passages, made principally with a view to the 
illustration of the Doctrines and Discipline of 
the Church of England. The peculiar cha- 
racter of the writings of the earlier Fathers 
pointed out this as the mode, in which the 
information to be derived from them might 
be most clearly and usefully exhibited to the 
Theological Student. In proceeding, however* 
to the writings of Tertullian, the next in order 
of time to those whose works had been pre- 

A 



viously reviewed, it occurred to the Author 
that a different mode might be adopted with 
advantage; and that they might be rendered 
subservient to the illustration of Ecclesiastical 
History in general. They, who have read 
Mosheim's work, require only to be reminded, 
that he divides the history of the Church into 
two branches, external and internal. Under 
the former he comprehends the prosperous and 
adverse events which befel it during each cen- 
tury ; under the latter the state of learning 
and philosophy, the government, doctrine, rites 
and ceremonies of the Church, and the Heresies 
which divided its members and disturbed its 
tranquillity, during the same period. This 
arrangement was not an original idea of 
Mosheim; the Centuriators of Magdeburgh 
had before adopted nearly a similar plan. His 
work is moreover of a very compendious cha- 
racter, designed to present his readers with a 
general and connected view of the history of 
Christianity from its first promulgation; and 
to assist their studies, by directing them to 
the sources from which, if they are so dis- 
posed, they may derive more particular and 
detailed information. The object, therefore, 



which the Author proposed to himself in his* 
Lectures on the writings of Tertullian, was, 
to employ them, as far as they could be em- 
ployed, in filling up Mosheim's outline, by 
arranging the information which they supply 
under the different heads above enumerated. 
Still it was necessary for him so far to adhere 
to his original plan as to prefix a brief account 
of Tertullian himself ; in order that the Student 
might be enabled accurately to distinguish the 
portion of Ecclesiastical History which his wri- 
tings serve to illustrate, as well as justly to 
appreciate the importance to be attached to 
his testimony and opinions. 1 

1 The edition of Tertullian's works, to which the refer- 
ences in the following pages are made, is that of Paris, 
1675. 



A 2 



CHAP. I. 

ON TEKTULLIAN AND HIS WRITINGS. 



JLhe following account of tertullian is 
given by 2 Jerome: 

" Tertullian a presbyter, the first Latin 
writer after Victor and Apollonius, was a 
native of the province of Africa and city of 
Carthage, the son of a 3 proconsular centurion: 



1 He is called in the MSS. of his works Quintus Septimius 
Florens Tertullianus : and in the concluding sentence of the 
Tract de Virginibus Velandis he calls himself Septimius 
Tertullianus. But whether that sentence is genuine may 
be reasonably doubted ; the same remark applies to the con- 
cluding words of the Tracts de Baptismo and de Exhor- 
tatione Castitatis. The final mention of Tertullian in the 
latter is omitted in the Codex Agobardi. Jerome calls him 
Septimius Tertullianus. Ep. ad Fabiolam sub fine. 

2 Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum. 

3 A proconsular centurion appears to have been a species 
of officer, who was constantly in attendance upon the pro- 
consul to receive his commands. See the note of Valesius 
19 Euseb. Eccl. Hist. L. ii. c. 2. This part of Jerome's ac- 
count has been supposed to be founded on a passage in the 

Apology, 



he was a man of a sharp and vehement 
temper, flourished under Severus and Anto- 
ninus Caracalla, and wrote numerous works, 
which, as they are generally known, I think it 
unnecessary to particularise. I saw at Con- 
cordia in Italy an old man named Paulus. 
He said that, when young, he had met at 
Rome with an aged amanuensis of the blessed 
Cyprian, who told him that Cyprian never 
passed a day without reading some portion 
of Tertullian's works ; and used frequently to 
say, Give me my master, meaning Tertullian. 
After remaining a presbyter of the Church until 
he had attained the middle age of life, Tertullian 
was by the envy and contumelious treatment of 
the Homan clergy driven to embrace the opi- 
nions of Montanus, which he has mentioned in 
several of his works under the title of the New 
Prophecy ; but he composed, expressly against 
the Church, the Treatises de Pudicitia, de Per- 
secutione, de Jejuniis, de Monogamia, and 4 six 

Apology, c. 9. Infantes penes Africam Saturno imraolabantur 
palam usque ad proconsulatum Tiberii, qui ipsos Sacerdotes in 
iisdem arboribus templi sui oburabraticibus scelerum votivis 
crucibus exposuit, teste militia patriae nostrae, quae id ipsum 
manus illi proconsuli functa est. Rigault says, that one MS. 
reads Patris nostri. 

4 The six books de Ecstasi and the seventh against Apollo- 
nius are lost. Montanus pretended that he was frequently 
thrown into a species of rapture or ecstasy ; and that, while in 
that state, he saw visions and received communications from 

the 



books de Ecstasi, to which he added a seventh 
against 5 Apollonius. He is reported to have 

the Spirit, which enabled him to foretel future events. This 
circumstance was urged by his opponents, as an argument 
against the truth of his pretensions to, inspiration ; and Milti- 
ades, of whom Tertullian speaks with respect, wrote a Treatise 
to shew that a prophet ought not to speak in ecstasy, irepi 
tov fxrj Zeiv 7rpo(pt]rt]v eu eKo-raVei \a\eTv. Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 
L. v. c. 17- Tertullian wrote his Books de Ecstasi in defence 
of Montanus ; and a passage in the fourth book against Mar- 
cion, c. 22. will put the reader in possession of his notions on 
the subject of prophetic inspiration. He is speaking of the 
Transfiguration, when, according to St. Luke, St. Peter knew 
not what he said: on which Tertullian observes, Quomodo 
nesciens? utrumne simplici errore, an ratione quam de- 
fendimus in causa Novae Prophetia?, gratiae ecstasin, id 
est, amentiam convenire ? In Spiritu enim homo constitutus, 
praesertim quum gloriam Dei conspicit vel quum per ipsum 
Deus loquitur, necesse est excidat sensu, obumbratus scilicet 
virtute divina, de quo inter nos et Psychicos (the name given 
by Tertullian to the Orthodox) quaestio est. Comp. adv. 
Marc. L. i c. 21. sub fine. L. v. c. 8. sub fine. adv. Praxeam 
c. 1 5. In like manner Tertullian supposes that in the deep 
sleep or ecstasy (eno-rao-iv in the Septuagint) into which 
Adam was thrown, when his rib was taken from him to form 
Eve, he was enabled to predict the perpetual union of Christ 
and the Church. Nam etsi Adam statim prophetavit mag- 
num illud Sacramentum in Christum et Ecclesiam (the refer- 
ence is to Ephesians, v. 31.) " Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et 
caro ex carne mea. Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem et 
matrem, et adglutinabit se uxori suae et erunt duo in carnem 
unam," accidentiam Spiritus passus est ; cecidit enim ecstasis 
super ilium, Sancti Spiritus vis, operatrix Prophetiae. De 
Anima, c. 11. Tertullian is very fond of this notion respect- 
ing the deep sleep or trance into which Adam was thrown • 
we find it again De Virgin. Vel. c. 5. De Anima, c. 21, 45. 
De Jejuniis, c. 3. 

5 Apollonius is mentioned as an opponent of Montanus, 
by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. L. v. c. 18. 



8 

lived to a very advanced age, and to have 
composed many other works which are not 
extant." 

The correctness of some parts of this 
account has been questioned. Doubts have 
been entertained whether Tertullian was 
a presbyter. It is certain that he was mar- 
ried, for among his works are two Treatises 
addressed to his wife. How then were the 
Roman Catholics to dispose of a fact, which 
appeared to militate strongly against their 
favorite doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy ? 
The easiest mode was to deny that he ever be- 
came a presbyter ; and in support of this opinion 
6 two passages, in which he appears to speak of 
himself as a layman, have been quoted from 
works supposed to have been written when he 
was far advanced in life. On these passages 
7 Allix remarks, that the course of Tertullian's 
argument in some measure compelled him to 

6 Vani erimus si putaverimus, quod Sacerdotibus non liceat, 
Laicis licere. Nonne et Laici Sacerdotes sumus ? Scriptum 
est, regnum quoque nos et Sacerdotes Deo et Patri suo fecit. 
De Exhort. Castit c. 7- Again, Sed quum extollimur et 
inflamur ad versus Clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus, tunc 
omnes Sacerdotes, quia Sacerdotes nos Deo et Patri fecit. 
Quum ad peraequationem discipline Sacerdotalis provocamur, 
deponimus infulas, et impares sumus. De Monogamia, c. 12. 

7 Dissertatio de Tertulliani Vita et Scriptis, c. 2. 



speak in the first person; and he opposes to 
them one from the Treatise 8 de Anima, in whicK 
our author states that he remained in the 
Church, or place of religious assembly, after the 
people were dismissed, for the purpose of re- 
cording and investigating the accounts given 
by a Christian female, to whom visions were 
vouchsafed, of what she saw in her spiritual 
ecstasies; an office which, in the opinion of 
Allix, would not have been assigned him, had 
he not been a presbyter. It must, however, be 
confessed, that this passage is by no means de- 
cisive of the controversy ; and we must be con- 
tent to receive the fact of Tertullian's admission 
to the priesthood, as the majority of Roman 
Catholic divines have received it, upon the 
authority of Jerome. We shall hereafter have 
occasion to notice the different conjectures pro- 
posed by them, in order to deprive their Pro- 
testant opponents of the argument which the 
example of Tertullian supplies in favor of a 
married priesthood. 

Another question has been raised respect- 
ing the place where Tertullian officiated as 
a presbyter ; whether at Carthage, or at Rome. 
That he at one time resided at Carthage 
may be inferred from Jerome's account; and 

8 c. 9- 



10 

is rendered certain by 9 several passages in 
his own writings. Allix supposes that the 
notion of his having been a presbyter of the 
Roman church owed its rise to Jerome's state- 
ment, that the envy and abuse of the Roman 
clergy impelled him to espouse the party 
of Montanus. 10 Optatus and the n author of 
the work de Hgeresibus, which Sirmond edited 
under the title of Prasdestinatus, expressly call 
him a Carthaginian presbyter. Sender, how- 
ever, in a Dissertation inserted in his edi- 
tion of Tertullian's works, (c. %) contends 
that he was a presbyter of the Roman 
church. We know, he argues, that Tertullian 
visited Rome ; for 12 he speaks of the pro- 
fusion of pearls and precious stones which he 
saw there. 13 Eusebius tells us that he was ac- 
curately acquainted with the Roman laws, and 
on other accounts a distinguished person at 

9 De Pallio, c. 1. Apology, c. 9. Scorpiace, c. 6. De 
Res. Carnis, c. 42. 

10 Adv. Parmenianum, L. i. 

11 c. 26. 

12 De Cultu Fceminarum, L. i. c. 7- Gemmarum quoque 
nobilitatem vidimus Romse, &c. 

13 Eccl. Hist. L. ii. c. 2. It should, however, be ob- 
served that Valesius, following Rufinus, understood the words 
to)!/ /jiaAi<j-T« eVi PwVv? Xafxirp^v to mean, that Tertullian 
had obtained distinction among Latin Writers. 



11 

Rome. He 14 displays moreover a knowledge 
of the proceedings of the Roman church with 
respect to Marcion and Valentinus, who were 
once members of it, which could scarcely have 
been obtained by one who had not himself been 
numbered among its presbyters. The question 
is of little importance, nor do the arguments 
on either side appear to be of so convincing 
a nature as to warrant a peremptory decision. 
Semler admits that, after Tertullian seceded 
from the church, he left Rome and returned 
to Carthage. 

Jerome does not inform us whether Tertul- 
lian was born of Christian parents, or was con- 
verted to Christianity. 15 There are passages in 
his writings which seem to imply that he had 
been a Gentile : yet he may perhaps mean to 
describe, not his own condition, but that of 
Gentiles in general before their conversion, 
Allix and the majority of commentators under- 
stand them literally, as well as 16 some other 

14 De Pra?scriptione Haereticorum, c. 30. 

15 Poenitentiam hoc genus hominum, quod et ipsi retro 
fuimus, caeci, sine Domini lumine, natura tenus norunt. 
De Pcenitentia., c. I. Nobis autem et via nationum patet, in 
qua et inventi sumus. De Fuga in Persec. c. 6. Et nati- 
ones, quod sumus nos. Adv. Marc. L. iii. c. 21. Ha?c et nos 
risimus aliquando ; De vestris fuimus. Apology, c. 18. 

16 De Cultu Fcem. L. ii. c. 1. De Res. Carnis, c. 59- De 

Pcenitentia , 



12 

passages in which he speaks of his own infirmi- 
ties and sinfulness. 

His writings shew that he flourished at the 
period specified by Jerome, that is, during 
the reigns of Severus and Antoninus Cara- 
calla, or between the years 193 and 216 ; 
but they supply no precise information respect- 
ing the date of his birth, or any of the 
principal occurrences of his life. Allix places 
his birth about the year 145 or 150 ; his 
conversion to Christianity about 185 ; his mar- 
riage about 186 ; his admission to the priesthood 
about 192; his adoption of the opinions of 
Montanus about 199; and his death about 
220 : but these dates rest entirely upon con- 
jecture. 

As the most remarkable incident in Tertul- 
lian's life was his adoption of the errors of Mon- 
tanus, it will be necessary to give some account 
of that Heresiarch. We find in 17 Eusebius the 
statement of an anonymous author, supposed by 
Lardner and others to be Asterius Urbanus, 
who wrote it about thirteen years after the 
death of Maximilla, one of the prophetesses 

Pcenitentia, c. 4, 12. De Patientia, c. 1. In the Tract de 
Idololatria, c. 4. he says of himself, Et quid ego modica? 
memoriae homo? 

V Eccl. Hist. L. v. c. 16. 



13 

who accompanied Montanus. From this state- 
ment we learn that he began to prophesy at 
Ardabau, a village in that part of Mysia which 
was contiguous to Phrygia, while Gratus was 
proconsul of Asia, — that many persons were 
induced to believe him divinely inspired, par- 
ticularly two females, Maximilla and Priscilla 
or Prisca, who also pretended to possess the 
same prophetic gifts ; that the fallacy of their 
pretensions was exposed, and their doctrine 
condemned; and that they were themselves 
excommunicated by different Synods held in 
Asia. The same anonymous author adds that 
Montanus and Maximilla hanged themselves; 
and that Theodotus, one of the earliest sup- 
porters of their cause, was taken up into the 
air and dashed to pieces by the Spirit of 
falsehood, to whom he had consigned himself 
under the expectation that he should be con- 
veyed into heaven. The author, however, tells 
us that he does not vouch for the truth of 
either of these stories. 

Considerable difference of opinion prevails 
respecting the exact period, when Montanus 
began to prophesy. The date of the procon- 
sulship of Gratus has not been ascertained; 
but in speaking of the persecution in which 
the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne suffered, 



14 

18 Eusebius says, that Montanus and his com- 
panions then began to be spoken of as prophets 
in Phrygia. The seventeenth year of Marcus 
Antoninus, or the year 177, is assigned by 
Eusebius himself as the date of the persecution 
in Gaul. In speaking also of the works of Apol- 
lonius of Hierapolis, who flourished about the 
year 170, 19 Eusebius says, that he wrote 
against the Cataphrygian heresy, of which 
Montanus then began to lay the foundations. 
20 Epiphanius places the rise of this heresy in 
the nineteenth year of Antoninus Pius, or the 
year 157? in which date he is followed by 
Pearson and Beausobre; Baratier places it as 
early as 126. Lardner decides in favor of the 
date assigned by Eusebius, whose authority on 
chronological questions is more to be relied 
upon than that of Epiphanius. 

It appears from the account given by the 
anonymous author, already quoted, that the 



18 Eccl. Hist. L. v. c. 3. The martyrs addressed letters 
to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia, as well as to. Eleu- 
therus, bishop of Rome, respecting the New Prophecy. 
Irenaeus does not expressly mention the Montanists, but 
is supposed to allude to them twice, L. iii. c. 11. p. 223. 
L. iv. c. 61. Clemens Alexandrinus twice mentions the Cata- 
phrygians. Strom. L. iv. p. 511. A. L. vii. p. 765. C. 

19 Eccl. Hist. L. iv. c. 27. 

20 Hser. 28 or 48. 



15 

21 followers of Montanus were numerous and 
powerful. One of them, named Themiso, pos- 
sessed sufficient influence to prevent Zoticus 
and Julian, the bishops of Comana and 
Apamea, from questioning the evil Spirit by 
whom they supposed Maximilla to be inspired. 

22 The general opinion of Christians in those 
days, founded as they conceived on Apostolic 
authority, was that the spirit of prophecy 
would remain in the Church until the second 
coming of Christ. They felt, therefore, a pre- 
disposition to lend an attentive ear to one 
who assumed the character of a prophet; and 
though the trances and ecstatic raptures and 
fanatical ravings of Montanus might disgust 
and repel the judicious and sober minded, 
they would be regarded by the credulous and 
wondering multitude as the surest signs of 
Divine inspiration. 



21 We know from Tertullian that one of the bishops of 
Rome (learned men are not agreed respecting the particu- 
lar bishop) was disposed for a time to recognise the pro- 
phetic character of Montanus. Adv. Praxeam, c. 1. 

22 The anonymous author urges (c. 170 as an argument 
against the Montanists, that there had been no succession 
of prophets among them since the death of Maximilla. 
She appears from Epiphanius to have herself foreseen this 
objection ; and to have furnished her followers with an 
answer by declaring, that after her no prophetess would 
appear, but the end of the world would come. 



16 

From a long extract, given by 23 Eusebius 
out of the writings of Apollonius against the 
Montanists, we collect, that their leader was 
charged with recommending married persons 
to separate ; 24 with laying down laws respecting 
fasts; with calling Pepuza and Tymium, vil- 
lages of Phrygia, Jerusalem, to which he 
wished to gather all the nations of the earth. 
He seems to have established a regular body 
of preachers ; to whom he assigned salaries, 
which he paid out of contributions raised 
from his followers under the name of Obla- 
tions. Of Maximilla and Priscilla, Apollonius 
relates, that they left their husbands when 
they joined themselves to Montanus; and he 
accuses the Montanists in general of convert- 
ing religion into a source of profit, as well 
as of being licentious in their conduct. He 
confirms the statement of the anonymous 
writer respecting the attempt made by certain 
bishops to try the Spirit in Maximilla whe- 
ther it was of God; and mentions Themiso 
as a man of great wealth, who wrote a catho- 
lic epistle in defence of Montanism. Of him- 



23 Eccl. Hist. L. v. c. 18. 

24 The expression is 6 t/^o-re/a? vonoderrjcra^. Montanus- 
did not merely himself observe additional fasts, but en- 
joined the observance of them by others. 



IT 

self he says, that he composed his work forty 
years after Montanus began to prophesy. 

The account given by 25 Epiphanius of the 
Montanists is, that they received both the 
Old and New Testaments ; believed in the Re- 
surrection of the Dead; and maintained the 
Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. Their error 
consisted in supposing that Montanus, Maxi- 
milla, and Priscilla were divinely inspired ; and 
maintaining that the recognition of the Charis- 
mata, or Spiritual Gifts, announced by Mon- 
tanus, was of absolute necessity. The larger 
portion of the account of Epiphanius is taken 
up in refuting the notions of Montanus re- 
specting inspiration ; and proving that the pro- 
phets both of the Old and New Testaments, 
at the time when they delivered their predic- 
tions, were in a state of complete self-posses- 
sion, and perfectly understood what they said. 
26 He gives some specimens of the prophecies 
of Montanus and his female associates, which 
are of the most extravagant character. In 
one of them Montanus says, " I am the Lord 
God who dwell in man." In another, " I am 
no angel or embassador: I myself, God the 



25 Ha?r. 28 or 48. 

26 Sect. 4, 10, II, 12, 13. 

B 



18 

Father, am come." Yet Epiphanius seems not 
to have understood these expressions as de- 
signed to convey the idea, that Montanus re- 
presented himself to be God the Father. 
Otherwise, he would scarcely have said that 
the Montanists agreed with the Catholic Church 
respecting the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
According to the anonymous author quoted 
by Eusebius, Maximilla predicted that wars 
and tumults — according to Epiphanius, that 
the end of the world — would closely follow 
her decease. The former observes, in confuta- 
tion of her predictions, that in the interval of 
thirteen years, which had elapsed between her 
death and the time at which he wrote, the 
world and the Church had enjoyed profound 
peace : the latter that, although she had been 
dead %20 years, the world still continued to 
exist. Epiphanius mentions also the respect 
entertained by the Montanists in his day for 
a desolate spot in Phrygia, called Pepuza ; once 
the site of a town, which had been levelled 
with the ground : and adds that they expected 
the heavenly Jerusalem to descend there. To 
the general head of Cataphrygians 27 he refers 
a number of minor sects, called Quintilliani, 
Pepuziani, Priscilliani, Artoturitas, and Tasco- 

2 7 Haer. 29 or 49-, 



19 

drugita*. The first three were so called in con- 
sequence of a vision seen by a female, of the 
name of 28 Quintilla or Priscilla, at Pepuza. 
The Artoturitse derived their name from using 
bread and cheese in the celebration of the 
Eucharist; and the Tascodrugitae from their 
custom of putting the fore-finger on the nose 
in the act of prayer; tcktkos in the Phrygian 
language signifying a stake, and Spovyyos 
a nose or beak. 

The foregoing statements, respecting the doc- 
trines and opinions of Montanus, are in great 
measure confirmed by the notices scattered over 
Tertullian's works. We find him, on the au- 
thority of the New Prophecy, enforcing the 
necessity of frequent fasts — if not actually con- 
demning marriage, yet on all occasions giving 
a decided preference to a life of celibacy, and 
positively pronouncing second marriages un- 

28 Tertullian wrote his Treatise de Baptismo against a 
female named Quintilla, who denied the necessity and 
efficacy of baptism. He describes her as belonging to the 
sect of Cainites (Caiani); wild and profligate fanatics, who 
called Cain their father, and regarded with particular 
veneration Esau, Corah, Judas, and all the characters noted 
in Scripture for their opposition to the will of God. 
Perhaps, therefore, Tertullian called Quintilla a Cainite, 
from analogy only, because she set herself against a divine 
ordinance, not because she was actually a member of the 
sect. 

B 2 



20 

lawful— maintaining that favorite notion of en- 
thusiasts in all ages of the Church, that the hea- 
venly 29 Jerusalem would descend on earth, and 
that the saints would reign there for a thousand 
years. We find him also uniformly asserting 
the orthodoxy of the Montanists upon the 
fundamental doctrines of Christianity; though 
with respect to the Trinity they appear to have 
30 introduced certain novel illustrations of the 
generation of the Son from the Father. We 
learn further from Tertullian, that Montanus 
denied to the Church the power of grant- 
ing absolution to persons guilty of flagrant 
offences — particularly to adulterers and forni- 
cators — and maintained that Christians were not 
at liberty to avoid persecution by flight, or 
to purchase their safety with money. 

31 Mosheim asserts, on the authority of the 
work already quoted under the title of Prae- 
destinatus, that among his other doctrines Mon- 

29 In confirmation of this notion, Tertullian narrates 
a prodigy which occurred in Judea, and was witnessed by 
the army then on its march into the east. For forty suc- 
cessive days, early in the morning, a city was seen suspended 
from heaven. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 24. 

30 Protulit enim Deus Sermonem, quemadmodum etiam 
Paracletus docet, sicut radix fruticem, et fons fluvium, et 
Sol radium. Adv. Praxeam, c. 8. 

31 De rebus Christianis ante Constantinum. Saeculum 
secundum, c. 6'7- 



21 

tanus taught the approaching downfal of the 
Roman Empire ; which would be followed by the 
appearance of Antichrist, and the second coming 
of our Lord to avenge the persecutions inflicted 
on his saints. The more judicious and sober- 
minded Christians would naturally take alarm 
at the open avowal of tenets, the necessary 
effect of which must be to render their religion 
obnoxious to the ruling powers, and to bring 
upon them fresh hardships and sufferings. We 
have seen that Maximilla predicted the speedy 
approach of those wars and tumults which were 
to precede the end of the world; and there 
are passages in m Tertullian's works which lead 
to the suspicion that he entertained similar sen- 
timents. He appears, however, to have felt the 
necessity of concealing them, and is betrayed by 
the struggle between his conviction and his pru- 
dence into occasional inconsistency of language. 
33 He sometimes speaks as if Christians ought, 
at others as if they ought not to pray for 
the speedy consummation of all things. 

32 See particularly the concluding chapter of the Tract 
de Spectaculis, where Tertullian's exultation at the pros- 
pect of the approaching triumph of the Christians, and of 
the punishment of their adversaries, nearly gets the better 
of his discretion. Quale autem spectaculum in proximo est 
adventus Domini jam indubitati, jam superbi, jam triumph- 
antis ? See also de Oratione, c. 5. 

33 Compare Apology, c. 32. 39- ad Scapulam, c. 2, with 
de Oratione, c. 5. de Res. Carnis, c. 22, sub in. 



22 

One question still remains to be considered : 
What was the precise nature of the preten- 
sions of Montanus ? The two passages, quoted 
by Epiphanius from his Prophecies, would 
at first sight lead us to suppose that he 
gave himself out to be God the Father. 
Some writers have thought that he pre- 
tended to be the Holy Ghost, who was 
incarnate in him, as the Word was in Jesus. 
Mosheim appears at different times to have 
held different opinions on the subject. In 
his 34 work de Rebus Christianorum ante Con- 
stantinum, he thus speaks of Montanus : 
" Homo nullius nominis, minime malus, natura 
tristis, debilisque judicii, morbo quodam animi 
in tantam incidebat amentiam, ut Spiritum 
Sanctum seu Paracletum ilium qui animaverat 
Apostolos Jesu Christi, divinitus sibi obtigisse 
contenderet ad res futuras maximi momenti 
prsedicandas, et morum vitasque disciplinary 
priori ab Apostolis tradita sanctiorem et me- 
liorem, tradendam." But in his ^Ecclesias- 
tical History, he gives the following account 
of the pretensions of Montanus : " Montanus 
pretended to be the Paraclete or Comforter, 
whom the Divine Saviour, at his departure 
from the earth, promised to send to his dis- 

34 Saeculum secundum, c. 66. 

35 Century II. c. 5. p. 237, note. 



23 

ciples to lead them into all truth. Neither 
have they," he adds, " who inform us that Mon- 
tanus pretended to have received from above 
the same Spirit or Paraclete, which formerly 
animated the Apostles, interpreted with accu- 
racy the meaning of this Heretic. It is, there- 
fore, necessary to observe here, that Montanus 
made a distinction between the Paraclete pro- 
mised by Christ to his Apostles, and the Holy 
Spirit that was shed upon them on the day 
of Pentecost; and understood by the former 
a Divine Teacher, pointed out by Christ under 
the name of Paraclete or Comforter, who was 
to perfect the Gospel by the addition of some 
doctrines omitted by our Saviour, and to cast 
a full light upon others which were expressed 
in an obscure and imperfect manner, though 
for wise reasons which subsisted during the 
ministry of Christ. This Paraclete, Montanus 
represented himself to be." It is scarcely neces- 
sary to observe, that the former statement is 
directly at variance with the latter, which Mo- 
sheim professes to have collected from an atten- 
tive perusal of Tertullian's writings. As my 
own perusal of the same writings has con- 
ducted me to the conclusion, that the former, 
not the latter, is the correct representation of 
the pretensions advanced by Montanus, I shall 
proceed to state the reasons on which my 
opinion is founded. 



Mosheim refers to no particular passage. Let 
us first turn to the commencement of the Trea- 
tise de Virginibus velandis, which contains the 
fullest and most connected account of Tertul- 
lian's notions respecting the Paraclete. Having 
laid down what he calls the immutable rule 
of faith respecting the Father and the Son, 
Tertullian goes on to say " that those parts of 
the Christian dispensation, which relate to the 
life and conversation of Christians, admit of 
change and improvement. On this very account 
our Lord sent the Paraclete ; to the end, that 
as the weakness of man's nature rendered 
him incapable of bearing the whole truth at 
once, the Christian rule of life might by de- 
grees be carried to 56 perfection by him, who 
was substituted in the place of the Lord, 
i. e. the Holy Spirit. Man, in his earliest state, 
was directed by the fear of God implanted 
in his nature: under the Law and Prophets 
he was in his infancy : under the Gospel in 
his youth : but now, through the Paraclete, he 
has reached the state of perfect manhood." In 
this passage the Paraclete and the Holy Spirit 
are clearly identified. 

36 Ab illo vicario Domini, Spiritu Sancto. Tertullian's 
notion was that, when our Lord ascended into heaven, he 
sent the Holy Spirit to carry on the Gospel Dispensation. 
Thus in the Tract de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 13. 
Misisse vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti, qui credentes agat ; and 
again, c. 28, Neglexerit officium Dei villicus, Christi vicarius. 



25 

We will now proceed to the Tract de Mo- 
nogamia; in which Tertullian is endeavouring 
to establish the superior sanctity of a life of 
celibacy, and contending that the Apostle's 
words, " It is better to marry than burn," im- 
ply only a permission granted in condescension 
to the infirmities of human nature. 37 "Whe- 
ther then," he proceeds, " we look to the grounds 
on which the permission was granted, or to 
the preference given to a state of celibacy (in 
the preceding words of St. Paul ' It is good 
for a man not to touch a woman'), the evident 
tendency of the Apostle's reasoning is to do 
away the permission to marry. This being so, 
why may not the same Spirit, coming after 
the days of the Apostles at the appropriate 
time (there being, according to the Preacher, 
a time for all things) for the purpose of lead- 
ing Christians into all truth — why may not, 
I say, the same Spirit have imposed a final 
and complete restraint upon the flesh ; and called 
men away from marriage, not indirectly, but 
openly ? especially as St. Paul's argument, that 

37 c. 3. Igitur si omnia ista obliterant licentiam nu- 
bendi, &c. It should be observed, that Tertullian's professed 
object, in the second and third chapters of the Tract de 
Monogamia, is to shew, that although the injunctions of the 
Paraclete were new and burthensome to human weakness, 
Christ had prepared the minds of his followers to expect 
that such would be their character. Compare c. 14. 



26 

6 the time is short,' is much more forcible now 
that 160 years have elapsed since he wrote 
his Epistle. Had such been the injunction of 
the Paraclete, ought you not thus to have 
reasoned with yourself? This is in truth the 
ancient discipline, exhibited in the flesh and 
will of the Lord (who was not married) and 
afterwards in the recommendations and exam- 
ples of his Apostles. This is the holiness to 
which we were originally destined. The Para- 
clete introduces no new doctrine : he now defi- 
nitively enjoins that of which he before gave 
warning : he now requires that for which he 
has hitherto been content to wait. Reflect 
upon these observations, and you will easily 
be convinced that it was competent to the 
Paraclete to limit man to a single marriage; 
since he might (in perfect consistency with the 
doctrine of Christ and his Apostles) have for- 
bidden marriage altogether : and if you rightly 
understand the will of Christ, you will admit it 
to be credible that the Paraclete would curtail 
a liberty which might with propriety have been 
wholly taken away. Nay, you will acknow- 
ledge that, in this case also, the Paraclete is 
your advocate ; since he has not imposed upon 
your weakness the obligation of absolute and 
undeviating continence." Surely the fair infer- 
ence to be deduced from the comparison of 



27 

this and the preceding passage is, not that 
38 Montanus pretended to be the Paraclete ; or 
made a distinction between the Paraclete pro- 
mised by Christ to his Apostles, and the Holy 
Spirit that was shed upon them on the day of 
Pentecost : but that Montanus conceived himself 
to be inspired by the same Spirit as the Apo- 
stles, though it was his peculiar office to close 
as it were the Christian revelation, and to place 
in a clear and refulgent light those sublime 
truths, those doctrines of perfection, which, 
during Christ's residence upon earth, his dis- 
ciples had not been able to bear ; but which 
had been in a progressive state of develope- 
ment since the descent of the Holy Spirit on 
the day of Pentecost. To say that the Holy 
Spirit inspired the Apostles, and the Paraclete 
Montanus, is to make a distinction only of 
words ; if, as is evident from the general tenor 
of Tertullian's writings, he 39 identified the Holy 

38 So far was Tertullian from supposing that Mon- 
tanus was the Paraclete, that he did not even conceive 
the revelations of the Paraclete to have been confined to 
him. For in the Tract de Res. Carnis, c. 11, he quotes 
some words, as spoken by the Paraclete through the pro- 
phetess Prisca; de quibus luculenter et Paracletus per Pro- 
phetidem Priscam, "Carnes sunt et carnem oderunt." 

' 39 He uses the word Paracletus to designate the third 
Person in the Holy Trinity. Ita connexus Patris in Filio, 
et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerentes, alteram ex altero, 
Adv. Praxeam, c. 25. And in the Tract de Jejuniis, c. 13, 
we find Spiritus Sanctus — qua Paracletus, id est, advocatus. 



28 

Spirit with the Paraclete. It is true that Ter- 
tullian generally speaks of the New Prophecy 
as proceeding from the Paraclete; but this 
is not invariably the case. In the 40 Treatise 
against Praxeas, he calls it the prophecy of the 
Holy Spirit. He makes a distinction between 
the revelations vouchsafed to the Apostles and 
to Montanus, with respect to their different 
degrees of perfection ; but none with respect 
to the source from which they were derived. 
For in the Tract 41 de Preescriptione Heere- 
ticorum, he says that "the Paraclete was the 
teacher of the Apostles when they went forth 
to preach unto the Gentiles;" and in 42 the 
Tract de Resurrectione Carnis, that "the Holy 
Spirit, having previously allowed some doctrines 
to remain involved in a certain degree of ob- 
scurity in order to prove the faith of Christians, 

40 Hie interim acceptum a Patre munus effudit, Spi- 
ritum Sanctum, tertium nomen divinitatis et tertium gradum 
majestatis, unius praedicatorem monarchies sed et oIkovo/jlicis 
interpretatorem, si quis sermones Novae Prophetiae ejus ad- 
miserit, c. 30. 

41 Quod si nationibus destinati doctores Apostolr, ipsi 
quoque doctorem consecuti erant Paracletum, c. 8. 

42 Sed quoniam nee dissimulare Spiritum Sanctum opor- 
tebat, quo minus et hujusmodi eloquiis superinundaret, 
quae nullis haereticorum versutiis semina subspargerent, imo 
et veteres eorum cespites vellerent, idcirco jam omnes retro 
ambiguitates et quas volunt parabolas aperta atque perspicua 
totius sacramenti praedicatione discussit per Novam Prophe- 
tiam de Paracleto inundantem. Sub fine. 



29 

had now removed all ambiguities by a clear 
and explicit developement of the whole mys- 
tery of the Gospel ; through the New Prophecy 
which had been poured out abundantly from 
the Paraclete." My conclusion is, that the pre- 
tensions of Montanus were correctly repre- 
sented by Augustine, when 43 he said, of him 
and his two female associates, Adventum Spi- 
ritus Sancti a Domino promissum in se potius 
quam in Apostolis fuisse asserunt; and 44 by 
Philaster, according to whom the Montanists 
held that the fulness of the Holy Spirit was 
not given to the Apostles, but to Montanus. 
This is also the view taken by 45 Lardner ; who 
says, that "the followers of Montanus sup- 
posed God to have made some additional reve- 
lations by him for the perfection of believers." 
But when Lardner, speaking of the compa- 
rative importance attached by the Montanists 
to the Revelations, made to their leader, and 
to the Apostles, contends that "they could not 
think this inspiration of Montanus equal to 
that of the Apostles, as it did not relate to 
the great articles of faith, but chiefly to 
matters of external order and discipline," he 
certainly does not give an accurate representa- 

43 Liber de Haeresibus, c. 26. 

44 Hseres. Cataphryges. 

45 History of Heretics. Of the Montanists, c. 19. 



30 

tion of the opinions of our author ; who ought 
perhaps so to have reasoned, but in fact rea- 
soned otherwise. Tertullian, who believed that 
Montanus was commissioned to complete the 
Christian revelation, could not deem him infe- 
rior to the Apostles, by whom it was only 
obscurely and imperfectly developed; nor can 
Lardner's statement be reconciled with the dis- 
tinguished appellation of irvevnaTiKoi, or spiritual, 
which Tertullian confers on the Montanists ; 
while he brands with the epithet of ^u^t/coi, 
or 46 animal, those who, though they believed all 
the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, 
rejected the new revelation from the Paraclete. 

Tertullian's works furnish presumptive 
proof that the effusions of Montanus and 
his female associates had been committed to 
writing. A passage has been' 47 already cited 
containing a saying of the prophetess Prisca; 
and in 48 the Treatises de Fuga in Persecutione 

46 Homines solius anima? et carnis. De Jejuniis, c. 17- 
4 ? Note 38. 

48 Spiritum vero si consulas, quid magis Sermone illo 
Spiritus probat? namque omnes pene ad Martyrium exhor- 
tatur non ad fugam, ut et illius commeraoremur " Publicans, 
inquit : bonum tibi est. Qui enim non publicatur (jrapalei'y- 
jxarltJTai) in hominibus, publicatur in Domino. Ne confun- 
daris : justitia te producit in medium. Quid confunderis, 
laudem ferens ? Potestas fit quum oonspiceris ab hominibus." 
Sic et alibi, " Nolite in lectulis, nee in aborsibus et febribus 

mollibus 



31 

and de Pudicitia are citations from the Dis- 
courses of Montanus. Yet the work, from 
which Epiphanius made his extracts, could not 
have been known to our author. Had he been 
acquainted with it, he could scarcely have failed 
in his Treatise against Praxeas to give some ex- 
planation of expressions, which appear at first 
sight to identify Montanus with God the Father. 

Such were the tenets and pretensions of 
Montanus, as far as we can collect them 
from the writings of authors who lived 
near his time ; and particularly of Tertullian, 
who appears to have adopted all his peculiar 
opinions. Some of his followers are said to 
have fallen into great errors both of doctrine 
and practice; though we may reasonably sus- 
pect that they were in many instances charged 
with crimes which existed only in the invention 
of their accusers. Montanus was evidently a 
man of weak intellects, who was induced, 
partly by a superstitious temper, partly 49 by 

mollibus optare exire, sed in Martyriis, ut glorificetur qui est 
passus pro vobis." De Fuga in Persec c. 9. Si et Spiritum 
quis agnoverit, audiet et fugitivos denotantern, c. 11. Hoc 
ego magis et agnosco et dispono, qui ipsum Paracletum In- 
Prophetis Novis habeo dicentem., ct Potest Ecclesia donare 
delictum/' sed non faciam, ne et alia delinquant. De Pudicitia, 
c. 21. 

49 The anonymous author in Eusebius imputes the con- 
duct of Montanus to this motive. 



32 

the desire of distinction, himself to pursue, 
and to recommend to others, an ascetic course 
of life. The austerity of his doctrine and 
practice naturally gained him admirers and 
followers; and he confirmed his empire over 
their minds by professing to see visions, and 
to receive revelations from heaven. Perhaps he 
had succeeded in persuading himself that he 
was divinely inspired. Fanaticism is for the 
most part combined with fraud, in the cha- 
racter of the religious impostor; nor is it im- 
probable that, in the state of exhaustion to 
which the body of Montanus was reduced by 
the length and frequency and severity of his 
fasts, his mind might occasionally become 
disordered, and he might mistake for realities 
the creations of a distempered fancy. 

The notion that the doctrine of the Gospel 
was not publicly delivered by the Apostles in 
its full perfection, but that certain important 
truths were reserved which the minds of men 
were not yet able to bear, does not appear to 
have been peculiar to the school of Montanus. 
The 50 Valentinians held a similar language, and 
supposed these mysterious truths to relate to 
their extravagant and unintelligible fancies re- 
specting the Pleroma and the successive gene- 

50 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 25. 



33 

rations of iEons. Even among the orthodox, 
a notion not altogether dissimilar very gene- 
rally prevailed. The principal object of the 
Stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus is to point 
out the distinction between the Christian who 
is perfected in knowledge (7 mo-twos), and the 
great mass of believers ; and to lay down rules 
for the formation of this perfect character. 
He does not indeed, like Montanus, profess 
to communicate truths which he had received 
by immediate revelation from abote, and of 
which the Apostles were ignorant. He sup- 
poses them to have been revealed by Christ 
to Peter, James and John, at 51 the time of 
the Transfiguration, and to Paul at a subse- 
quent period; and to have been by them 
orally transmitted to their successors in the 
superintendance of the Church, When, how- 
ever, we come to enquire into the nature of 
this 52 sublime knowledge, we find that it 



51 Eusebius says after the resurrection, Eccl. Hist. 
L. ii. c. 1. Compare Clem. Alex. Strom. L. i. p. 322. 1. 18. 
p. 323. 1. 23. p, 324. 1. 26. L. vi. p. 771. 1. 14. p. 774* 
1. 27- p- 802. 1. 36. p. 806. 1. 25. Ed. Potter. Mr. Rennell 
in his Proofs of Inspiration has inadvertently referred to 
the first of these passages as bearing testimony to the inspi- 
ration of the New Testament, p. 46. 

52 Clemens says that he is not at liberty to disclose 
fully and openly wherein this yvwais consists, as it is of too 
pure and spiritual a nature to be comprehended by Christians 

C in 



34 

consisted of subtle explanations of the doc- 
trine of the Trinity and of other Christian 
doctrines; of allegorical and mystical inter- 
pretations of Scripture; and of moral precepts 
not widely differing from those, the observance 
of which was enjoined by Montanus, though 
carried to a less degree of extravagance. For 
instance, 53 Clemens does not pronounce second 
marriages positively unlawful, but says that a 
man who marries again after the decease of 
his wife falls short of Christian perfection. 
The notions of Clemens bear a close affinity 
to mysticism, and are calculated to form a sort 
of philosophic Christian, raised far above the 
sensible world, and absorbed in sublime con- 
templations; those of Montanus would lead 
men to place the whole of virtue in bodily 
austerities and acts of mortification : both may 
be justly charged with having assisted in 
paving the way for the introduction of the 
monastic mode of life. 

There is nothing more flattering to the 
pride of man than the persuasion that he is 



in general, L. i. p. 327. L 41. The notion, if not originally 
suggested by certain passages in St. Paul's Epistles, was at 
least defended by a reference to them. Strom. L. v. p. 683. 
1. 18. 

53 Strom. L. iii. p. 548. 1. 26. 



35 

the favoured depositary of knowledge which 
is unattainable by the generality of his fellow- 
creatures ; — that, while they are destined to pass 
their lives amidst thick clouds and darkness, 
he with a select few is permitted to bask in 
the meridian sunshine of divine truth. Both 
the philosophy and the religion of the Gentile 
world had their external and internal doctrines ; 
and from them in an evil hour the distinction 
was introduced into the Church of Christ. 
Clemens Alexandrinus is the earliest Christian 
writer in whose works any allusion to it ap- 
pears; and we say that he introduced the dis- 
tinction in an evil hour, because on it and 
on the account which he gives of its origin, 
are founded the two principal arguments urged 
by Roman Catholics in defence of their doc- 
trinal and other corruptions. When driven 
from every other point, they fly, as to a last 
refuge, to the disciplina arcani and to oral 
tradition ; and though the writings of Clemens 
afford no countenance whatever to the parti- 
cular errors which the Romish Church is 
anxious to maintain, yet it derives no small 
advantage to its cause from the statement of 
so early a writer — that Christ communicated 
important truths to the Apostles, which were 
neither intended for the ear, nor adapted to the 
comprehension of the great body of believers, 

c2 



36 

and which had come down to his own time 
through the medium of oral tradition. 

But to return to Tertullian — his adoption of 
the opinions of Montanus has, without the 
slightest semblance of truth, been imputed by 
Pamelius and others to disappointed ambition. 
He was indignant, they say, because he was 
defeated in his pretensions to the See, either 
of Rome or Carthage. The true cause of his 
defection from the Church is to be sought in 
the constitution and temper of his mind; to 
which the austere doctrines and practice of the 
new Prophet were perfectly congenial, and of 
which the natural warmth and acerbity were, 
as 54 Jerome informs us, increased by the cen- 
sures, perhaps by the misrepresentations of the 
Roman clergy. 

Before we quit this part of the subject, 
it will be necessary to obviate an objection, 
which the foregoing statement may possibly 
suggest. " What reliance, it may be asked, can 
we place upon the judgement, or even upon 
the testimony of Tertullian, who could be de- 
luded into a belief of the extravagant preten- 
sions of Montanus ? or what advantage can the 

54 Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum. 



37 

theological student derive from reading the 
works of so credulous and superstitious an 
author ?" These are questions easily asked, and 
answered without hesitation by men who take 
the royal road to theological knowledge : who 
either through want of the leisure, or impa- 
tience of the labour, requisite for the exami- 
nation of the writings of the Fathers, find it 
convenient to conceal their ignorance under an 
air of contempt. Thus a hasty and unfair 
sentence of condemnation has been passed upon 
the Fathers, and their works have fallen into 
unmerited disrepute. The sentence is hasty, 
because it bespeaks great ignorance of human 
nature, which often presents the curious phe- 
nomenon of an union of the most opposite 
qualities in the same mind; of vigour, acute- 
ness, and discrimination on some subjects, with 
imbecility, dullness, and bigotry on others. The 
sentence is unfair, because it condemns the 
Fathers for faults, which were those, not of the 
individuals, but of the age : of the elder Pliny 
and Marcus Antoninus, as well as of Tertullian. 
It is moreover unfair, because the persons, who 
argue thus in the case of the Fathers, argue 
differently in other cases. Without intending 
to compare the gentle, the amiable, the accom- 
plished Fenelon, with the harsh, the fiery, the 
unpolished Tertullian, or to class the spiritual 



38 

reveries of Madame Guyon with the extrava- 
gancies of Montanus and his prophetesses, it 
may be remarked that the predilection of 
Fenelon for the notions of the mystics be- 
trayed a mental weakness, differing in degree, 
rather than in kind, from that which led Ter- 
tullian to the adoption of Montanism. We 
do not, however, on account of this weak- 
ness in Fenelon, throw aside his works as 
utterly undeserving of notice, or deem it a suf- 
ficient ground for questioning the superiority 
of his genius and talent : we regard with sur- 
prise and regret this additional instance of 
human infirmity, but continue to read Tele- 
machus with instruction and delight. Let us 
shew the same candour and sound judgement 
in the case of the Fathers : let us separate the 
wheat from the tares, and not involve them in 
one indiscriminate conflagration. The assertion 
may appear paradoxical, but is nevertheless 
true, that the value of Tertullian's writings to 
the theological student arises in a great measure 
from his errors. When he became a Montanist, 
he set himself to expose what he deemed faulty 
in the practice and discipline of the Church : 
thus we are told indirectly what that practice 
and that discipline were; and we obtain infor- 
mation which, but for his secession from the 
Church, his works would scarcely have supplied. 



39 

In a word, whether we consider the testimony 
borne to the genuineness and integrity of the 
books of the New Testament, or the infor- 
mation relating to the ceremonies, discipline, 
and doctrines of the primitive Church, Ter- 
tullian's writings form a most important link 
in that chain of tradition which connects the 
Apostolic age with our own. 

55 Attempts have been made to arrange Ter- 
tullian's works in chronological order; with 
how little success we may judge from the 

55 For the better understanding of the remarks upon 
Tertullian's writings, the dates of the principal events connected 
with the reign of Severus are inserted as given by the Bene- 
dictines in their learned work, L'Art de Verifier les Dates. 

A. D. 

Commencement of the reign of Severus 193 

Defeat of Niger 195 

Taking of Byzantium 196 

Defeat of Albinus 197 

Caracalla associated in the empire 198 

War against the Parthians 198 

Severus returns from that war 203 

Celebration of the Secular Games 204 

Plautianus put to death 204 or 205. 

War in Britain 208 

Wall built by Severus 210 

Death of Severus 211 

Caracalla born 188 

called Caesar 196 

Augustus 198 

Geta born 189 

called Caesar 198 

Augustus 208 



40 

diversity of opinions which has prevailed 
among learned men respecting the date of 
a single tract, that entitled de Pallio. It ap- 
pears that Tertullian had exchanged the Roman 
Toga for the Pallium, which was worn by 
the Greeks and by those who affected to be 
called philosophers. This change of dress ex- 
cited the ridicule and censure of his fellow- 
citizens of Carthage; and he composed the 
Treatise de Pallio in answer to their attacks. 
Pamelius, with whom Scaliger agrees, sup- 
poses that it is the earliest of Tertullian's 
works now extant; written immediately after 
his conversion to Christianity, on which occa- 
sion he put on the Pallium, the garment then 
universally worn by Christians. Salmasius 
contends that the Pallium was the dress, not 
of Christians in general, but of presbyters 
only ; and that the tract was consequently 
written after the admission of Tertullian into 
that order. 56 Allix differs both from Pame- 
lius and Salmasius, and affirms, that the Pal- 
lium was worn only by those Christians who 
adopted an ascetic course of life ; he concludes, 
therefore, that the tract was written shortly 
after Tertullian openly professed himself a 
Montanist. Each of the three critics supports 

* Dissertatio de Tertulliani vita, et scriptis, c. 6- 



41 

his opinions by quotations from the tract it- 
self ; and there is one passage which at first 
sight would lead the reader to hope that the 
date might be ascertained with a considerable 
degree of precision. Tertullian 57 says, that 
three persons were then united in the admi- 
nistration of the empire, and that the world 
enjoyed profound peace. Unfortunately, the 
commentators cannot agree among themselves 
whether the three emperors were 58 Severus, 
Antoninus Caracalla, and Albinus, or 59 Severus^ 
Antoninus Caracalla, and Geta; or whether 
the profound peace of which Tertullian speaks 
was that which followed the suppression of 
Niger's revolt, or that which the empire en- 
joyed during the latter years of the life of 
Severus. 60 Semler leans to the former opinion, 
but admits that the question is involved in 
great obscurity. In fact, the style of the Trea- 
tise is so declamatory and rhetorical, that no 
inference can be safely drawn from particular 
expressions ; 61 to me, however, it appears to 

57 Quantum urbium aut produxit, aut auxit, aut reddidit 
praesentis Imperii triplex Virtus ! Deo tot Augustis in unum 
favente, quot census transcripti ! &c. c. 2. 

58 A. S. 196. 

59 A. S. 208. 

60 Dissertatio in Tertullianum, c. 1. 

61 This inference I draw from the following passages: 
Enimvero quum hanc primum sapientiam vestit, quae vanis- 
simis superstitionibus renuit, tunc certissime pallium super 

omnes 



42 

have been written as a defence of the general 
adoption of the Pallium at that period, by 
the Christians of Carthage ; or perhaps of its 
adoption by himself in particular, because he 
deemed it more suitable to the Christian cha- 
racter. 

The only work, which supplies positive evi- 
dence of its date, is the first Book against 
Marcion. In 62 c. 15. Tertullian says, that he 
is writing in the fifteenth year of the reign 
of the Emperor Severus, or the year 207. 
There is also positive evidence in 63 this book 
that the author was, when he wrote it, a 
believer in the prophecies of Montanus. 

In a passage from the 64 Tract de Monogamia, 
already referred to, Tertullian says, that 160 



omnes exuvias et peplos augusta vestis, superque omnes 
apices et titulos sacerdos suggestus; deduc oculos, suadeo, 
reverere habitum unius interim erroris tui renuntiatorem, c. 4. 
sub fine. And again, Sed ista pallium loquitur. " At ego 
jam illi etiam divina? Sectae ac Discipline commercium 
confero." Gaude pallium, et exulta; melior jam te Phi- 
losophia dignata est, ex quo Christianum vestire ccepisti, c. 6. 

62 Ad decimum quintum jam Severi Imperatoris. 

63 Sed etsi nubendi jam modus ponitur, quern quidem 
apud nos Spiritalis Ratio, Paracleto Auctore, defendit, unum 
in Fide matrimonium praescribens, c. 29* 

64 c. 3. See note 37- 



43 

years had elapsed since St. Paul addressed his 
first Epistle to the Corinthians. Pamelius in 
consequence assigns the year 213 as the date 
of the tract, conceiving that the first Epistle to 
the Corinthians was written in 53. But in the 
first place, learned men are not agreed respect- 
ing the exact date of the Epistle, some fix- 
ing it as late as 59 ; and in the next, it is 
highly probable that Tertullian did not speak 
with precision, but used round numbers. In 
the first Address ad Nationes our author 
says, 65 in one place that 250 years, in another 
that 300 years had not yet elapsed since the 
birth of Christ: it is evident, therefore, that 
in neither instance did Tertullian mean to 
express the precise number. 

Unable to discover in the works themselves 
any marks by which their dates may be pre- 
cisely ascertained, later critics have been con- 
tent to divide them into two classes; those 
written before Tertullian adopted the errors of 
Montanus, and those written afterwards. But 
even on this point a diversity of opinions 
subsists, and the commentators are not agreed 
to which of the two classes each work be- 
longs. Unless indeed the tract contains some 

60 The first number occurs in c. ?• the second in c 9* 



44 

allusion to the Paraclete or to the New Pro- 
phecy, we are not warranted in positively as- 
serting that it was written by a Montanist ; 
nor does the absence of all such allusion jus- 
tify a contrary inference. The subject of the 
tract might afford its author no opportunity 
of disclosing his belief in the inspiration of 
Montanus ; while on the other hand the mere 
fact, that one of the tenets maintained by that 
Heresiarch occurs in a particular work, is not of 
itself sufficient to prove that Tertullian, when 
it was written, was professedly a Montanist. 
There were in that age, as in most ages, of the 
Church, two parties, the advocates of a milder 
and of a severer discipline. In the latter class 
would be many, whose opinions respecting the 
course of life to be pursued by a Christian 
would not differ widely from those of Mon- 
tanus; although they might give no credit to 
his pretended revelations from heaven. The 
natural disposition of Tertullian would incline 
him to the more rigid side; yet it is proba- 
ble that a gradual change was effected in his 
sentiments, and that, as he advanced in years, 
they continually assumed a harsher and more 
uncompromising character. Such is the usual 
progress of opinion, and we know that on two 
points at least this change actually took place 
in his case — the readmission of penitents into 



45 

the Church, and the degree of criminality to be 
attached to a second marriage. As the inclina- 
tion to the severe discipline of Montanus always 
existed in Tertullian's mind, and increased by 
slow and almost imperceptible degrees, it is 
scarcely possible, in the absence of all external 
testimony, to draw a well-defined line of separa- 
tion between the works which were and those 
which were not composed before his seces- 
sion from the Church. Having premised these 
observations respecting the difficulty of ar- 
riving at any certainty on the subject, I will 
proceed to state the result of my own exa- 
mination of Tertullian's writings. 

The Tracts de Pcenitentia, de Oratione, and 
de Baptismo, are allowed by the majority of 
commentators to have been written, before Ter- 
tullian had become a follower of Montanus. 

Erasmus doubted the genuineness of the 
Tract de Pcenitentia ; partly on account of its 
superiority in point of style to the acknow- 
ledged works of Tertullian, and partly because 
it contains opinions at variance with those 
which he has expressed in the Tract de 
Pudicitia. 66 In the former, he expressly 



tit; 



See c. 7, 8, 9- 



46 

says, that all crimes without exception com- 
mitted after baptism may once, but only 
once, be pardoned by the Church upon re- 
pentance : in the 67 latter, he denies that adul- 
terers, as well as idolaters and murderers, can 
ever be reconciled to the Church. But 68 in 
the commencement of the Tract de Pudicitia he 
himself alludes to this change in his senti- 
ments, which is also mentioned by 69 Jerome; 
and the necessary inference from a compari- 
son of the passages is, that the Tract de 
Pcenitentia is genuine, and that it was com- 
posed while Tertullian was yet a member of 
the Church. 

70 A passage in the fifth Chapter of Hilary's 
Commentary on St. Matthew implies that 
Tertullian composed the Treatise de Oratione 
before he quitted the communion of the 

6 ? See c. 5. 

68 c. 1. Erit igitur et hie adversus Psychicos titulus, ad- 
versus mece quoque sententice retro penes illos societatem, &c. 

69 Epistle to Damasus on the parable of the Prodigal 
Son: Unde vehementer admiror Tertullianum in eo Libro, 
quern de Pudicitia adversum Pcenitentiam scripsit et senten- 
tiam veterem nova opinione dissolvit, hoc voluisse sentire. 

70 De Orationis autem Sacramento necessitate nos com- 
mentandi Cyprianus vir Sanctae memoriae liberavit. Quam- 
quam et Tertullianus hinc volumen aptissimum scripserit; 
sed consequens error hominis detraxit scriptis probabilibus 
auctoritatem, 



47 

Church. It is certain that 71 he mentions the 
Shepherd of Hernias without bestowing upon it 
any of those opprobrious epithets which he 
employs in 72 the Treatise de Pudicitia, writ- 
ten after he became a Montanist. 

Allix thinks that he discovers traces of a 
leaning to Montanism in the Tract de Bap- 
tismo. He founds his suspicions on an allusion 
to the name of 73 Pisciculi, which Tertullian 
applies to the Christians, and on the men- 
tion of 74 Charismata. But with respect to 
the latter term, there appears to be no reason 
for restricting it to the revelations of Mon- 
tanus; and with respect to the appellation of 
Pisciculi, though Allix may be right in sup- 
posing it to have been borrowed by Ter- 
tullian from the Sibylline Verses, the work, 
according to him, either of Montanus or a 

71 C. 12. 72 c . 10# 

73 Sed nos Pisciculi secundum l^dvu nostrum Jesum 
Christum in aqua nascimur, c. 1. Cicero says (De Divina- 
tione, L. ii. c. 54. or 111.) that the original Sibylline Verses 
were Acrostics ; and in the eighth book of the spurious verses 
are some Acrostics, commencing with the initial letters of the 
words 'I»7o-ou? XpivTos, Qeov Y/os, 2wr»7p, of which letters 
the word lx^ is composed : but according to Lardner, there 
is no good ground to think that Tertullian has alluded to 
these Acrostics. Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 29- 

74 Petite de Domino peculia, gratias, distributiones charis- 
matum subjiciente, c. 20. sub fine. 



48 

Montanist; yet the majority of learned men 
are of opinion that the forgery of the Sibyl- 
line Verses was prior to the rise of the 
heresy of Montanus. There is in my opinion 
a far more suspicious passage in 75 this book, 
where Tertullian says, that three persons com- 
pose a Church ; a notion which frequently oc- 
curs in the works confessedly written after 
he became a believer in the New Prophecy. 

Allix, in like manner, discovers a leaning to 
Montanism in the two Treatises ad Uxorem ; in 
the former of which Tertullian dissuades his 
wife, in case she should survive him, from con- 
tracting a second marriage ; in the latter, fearful 
that she might be unwilling to impose upon her- 
self so severe a restraint, he cautions her at 
least not to marry a heathen. This condescen- 
sion to human weakness is so utterly at variance 
with the harsh language which he applied to 
second marriages after he became a Montanist, 
that I cannot assent to the opinion of Allix. 

In the Tract ad Martyres is 76 an allusion 

75 Quum autem sub tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio 
salutis pignerentur, necessario adjicitur Ecclesioe mentio ; 
quoniam ubi tres, id est, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, 
ibi Ecclesia quae trium corpus est. c. 6. 

76 c. 1. Quam pacem quidam., in Ecclesia non habentes, 
a Martyribus in carcere exorare consueverunt. Et ideb 

earn 



49 

to a practice which then prevailed, of restor- 
ing penitents to the communion of the Churcn, 
at the request of persons confined in prison 
on account of their profession of Christianity. 
If we compare the tone of this allusion 
with the pointed condemnation of the practice 
in the 77 Tract de Pudicitia, we must, I 
think, conclude that Tertullian was not yet 
a convert to Montanism when he wrote the 
Tract ad Marty res. The death of the philo- 
sopher Peregrinus, which happened between 
the years 164 and 170, is mentioned in c. 4 ; 
and the concluding sentence has been sup- 
posed, with great appearance of probability, 
to relate to the numerous executions, particu- 
larly of persons of the Senatorial Order, which 
took place after the defeat and death of 
78 Albinus ; though it may perhaps relate to the 
death of Plautianus. 

A comparison of the different modes in 
which Tertullian speaks of flight in time of 
persecution, in the Tracts de 79 Patientia and 

earn etiam propterea in vobis habere et fovere et custodire 
debetis, ut si forte et aliis praestare possitis. 

77 c. 22. 

78 A. S. 197- 

79 c. 13. Si fuga urgeat, ad versus incommoda fugae 
caro militat. The fair inference from these words appears 
to be that flight in time of persecution is allowable. 

D 



50 

de Fuga in Persecutione, will lead to the 
conclusion that the former was written while 
he was yet a member of the Church. 

The Treatise adversus Judeeos is supposed 
by Pamelius to have been written in the year 
198 ; by Allix (after Baronius) in 208. Allix 
grounds his opinion on the expressions respect- 
ing the state of the Roman empire which 
occur in c. 7, and which he conceives to be 
applicable only to the latter years of the reign 
of Severus ; but they are so general that no 
inference as to the date of the tract can be 
safely drawn from them. 

Allix infers from the mention of Charis- 
mata in the 80 Tract de Prsescriptione Hsere- 
ticorum, that it was written after Tertullian 
became a Montanist. But, as was observed 
with respect to the Tract de Baptismo, the 
context suggests no reason why we should 
restrict the word to the peculiar gifts of the 
Paraclete of Montanus. Allix also quotes a 
passage from the first book against Marcion, 
from which he argues that it was prior to 
the Tract de Prasscriptione Hgereticorum ; 81 the 

80 c 29. 

81 Sed alius libellus hunc gradum sustinebit adversus 
Hcereticos, etiam sine retractatu doctrinarum revincendos, 

quod 



51 

context leads me to an opposite conclusion. 
Besides, had the tract been written by a Mon- 
tanist, some mention of the Paraclete would 
probably have been introduced into the short 
summary of faith given in c. 13. ; as is the case 
in the first chapter of the Tract de Virginibus 
velandis. 82 The conclusion also warrants the 
inference that it was written before all the 
Treatises against particular Heresies. It was 
certainly prior to the Tract de 83 Carne Christi. 

It was also prior to the 84 Tract against 
Hermogenes, in the first chapter of which there 
is an allusion to it. Allix thinks that Ter- 
tullian was a Montanist, when he wrote 
against Hermogenes, 85 because he charges that 



quod hoc sint de Praescriptione Novitatis. Nunc quatenus 
adraittenda congressio est, interdum, ne compendium Prce- 
scriptionis ubique advocatum diffidentise deputetur, regulam 
Adversarii prius praetexam, ne cui lateat in qua principalis 
quaestio dimicatura est. c. 1. 

82 c. 45. Sed nunc quidem generaliter actum est a nobis 
adversus haereses omnes,, certis et justis et necessariis pree- 
scriptionibus repellendas a conlatione Scripturarum. De 
reliquo, si Dei gratia annuerit, etiam specialiter quibusdam 
respondebimus. 

83 c. 2. Sed plenius ejusmodi praescriptionibus adversus 
omnes haereses alibi jam usi sumus. 

84 c. 1. Solemus Haereticis compendii gratia de posteritate 
praescribere. 



SO 



c. 1. Praeterea pingit illicite, nubit assidue. Legem De 



in libidinem defendit. 

D 2 



52 

heretic with marrying repeatedly ; but I doubt 
whether the words are sufficiently precise to 
warrant the inference. 

Great diversity of opinion prevails among 
the commentators respecting the date of the 
Apology. Allix appears to me to have shewn 
satisfactorily that it was written, 86 not at 
Rome, but at Carthage: and that it was ad- 
dressed, not 87 to the Senate, but to the 
governors of Proconsular Africa. He has not, 
however, been equally successful in proving 
that it was written so late as the year 
217. I cannot discover, in 88 the passage in 

86 Speaking of Rome, Tertullian says, c. 9. Ecce in ilia 
religiosissima, urbe iEneadum: and in c. 21. sub fine, he 
thus addresses the Romans : Ut ad vos quoque, dominatores 
gentium, aspiciam : and again, in c. 35. Ipsos Quirites, 
ipsam vernaculam septem collium plebem, convenio: modes 
of expression which he would scarcely have used, had the 
Tract been written at Rome. 

87 In designating the persons to whom the Apology is 
addressed, he styles them in general Praesides ; thus, Veritatis 
extorquendae Praesides, c. 2. Ex ipsis etiam vobis justissimis 
et severissimis in nos Praesidibus, c. 9. Hoc agite, boni 
Praesides, c. 50. In c. 2. he uses the expression, Hoc impe- 
rium cujus ministri estis ; and from a passage in c. 45. Deum 
non Proconsulem timentes, it may fairly be inferred that 
he was writing in a province governed by a Pro-Consul. 

88 Nonne vanissimas Papias Leges, quae ante liberos sus- 
cipi cogunt quam Juliae matrimonium contrahi, post tantae 
auctoritatis senectutem heri Severus constantissimus Princi- 
pum exclusit? c. 4. 



53 

which Tertullian speaks of the reformation of 
the Papian Laws, any reason for thinking that 
Severus was then dead ; I should rather infer 
the contrary. The allusion to the conspiracies 
which were daily 89 detected at the very time 
when the book was written, as well as the 

90 enumeration of the barbarous nations which 
either then were, or had recently been, at war 
with Rome, correspond to the events which 
took place during the reign of Severus ; and 
as the work contains internal testimony that 
the Christians were then suffering persecution, 
why may it not have been written soon after 

91 the promulgation of the law, by which the 
Christians were forbidden to make proselytes, 
that is, about the year 204 ? The date assigned 

89 Unde Cassii et Nigri et Albini? and again, Sed et 
qui nunc scelestarum partium socii aut plausores quotidie reve- 
iantur, post vindemiam parricidarum racematio superstes, &c. 
c. 35. This passage appears to relate to the triumph of Seve- 
rus after his return from the Parthian War, and to the con- 
spiracy of Plautianus which took place about the year 204. 

90 c. 37. Plures nimirum Mauri et Marcomanni ipsique 
Parthi. 

91 The part taken by the Syrians of Palestine in favour of 
Niger greatly irritated Severus, and probably gave occasion 
to this law. iElii Spartiani Severus, p. 902. C. From the 
words of the historian it might be inferred that the law 
applied only to Palestine. In itinere Palsestinis plurima jura 
fundavit. Judaeos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit. Idem etiam 
de Christianis sanxit, p. 904. Speaking shortly after of 
the inhabitants of Alexandria, he says, Multa praeterea his 
jura mutavit. 



54 

by Mosheim, in a Tract written expressly on 
the subject, is 198, It was not to be expected 
that any marks of Montanism would appear 
in the Apology. 

The two books, entitled ad Nationes, have 
come down to us in so imperfect a state that 
it is difficult to ascertain whether they were 
designed to be a distinct work from the Apo- 
logy ; or whether Tertullian at first wrought 
his materials into this form, which he after- 
wards thought proper to change. The argu- 
ments are for the most part the same as those 
urged in the Apology, and are frequently ex- 
pressed in the same words. Allix fancied that 
he found an allusion 92 to the assumption of 
the title of Parthicus by Caracalla, and con- 
cluded, therefore, that these books were written 
after the death of Severus ; but I suspect that 
the allusion existed only in his own fancy. 



92 Ita vero sit, quum ex vobis nationibus quotidie Caesares, 
et Parthici, et Medici, et Germanici, L. i. c. 17- Allix drew 
his inference from a passage in the life of Caracalla which 
goes under the name of iElius Spartianus. Datis ad Senatum, 
quasi post victoriam, literis Parthicus appellatus est; nam 
Germanici nomen patre vivo fuerat consecutus, p. 930. D. 
The circumstance here alluded to occurred not long before the 
death of Caracalla in 217- But the titles of Parthicus and 
Germanicus had been so frequently conferred upon Emperors, 
that it cannot be affirmed with any degree of certainty that 
a particular allusion to Caracalla was intended. 



55 

The Tract de Testimonio Animae was sub- 
sequent to the Apology, to which it contains 
a reference. Ut loco suo edocuimus ad fidem 
earum (Divinarum Scripturarum) demonstran- 
dam, c. 5. The reference is to the nineteenth 
chapter of the Apology, in which Tertullian 
establishes the superior antiquity of the Hebrew 
Scriptures to the literature of the Gentiles. 

The terms in which Tertullian speaks, 93 iii 
his address to Scapula, of the favour shewn 
by Severus to the Christians, in consequence 
of the cure wrought upon him by one of their 
body named Proculus, lead to the conclusion 
that the work was composed after that Empe- 
ror's death. There is 94 in this Tract an allusion 
td the destruction of Byzantium which took 
place in the year 196; as well as to a preter- 
natural extinction of the Sun's light which 
occurred at Utica, and which Allix supposes 
to have been an eclipse of the Sun that hap- 
pened in the year 210. He agrees with Sca- 
liger and Holstenius in thinking that this was 
one of the latest of Tertullian's works, and 
written about the year 217. In c. 4. Tertullian 



93 c 4>. The cure was performed by the use of oil. Severus 
laboured under an arthritic complaint. iElii Spartiani Severus, 
p. 903. D. 

94 c. 3. Extincto pene lumine. 



56 

mentions Cincius Severus among the governors 
who treated the Christians with lenity. This 
governor was put to death by Severus after the 
defeat and death of 95 Albinus. The Tract con- 
tains no traces of Montanism, yet was probably 
written after the author became a Montanist. 

The Treatises, in which we find positive allu- 
sions to the prophecies of Montanus, are those 
96 de Corona, 97 de Anima, 98 de Virginibus velan- 
dis, 99 de Resurrectione Carnis, 10 ° against Praxeas, 
101 the first, 102 third, 103 fourth, and 104 fifth books 
against Marcion, and the Tracts de Fuga in 
Persecutione, de Monogamia, de Jejuniis, and 
de Pudicitia. The four last-mentioned Tracts 
are stated by Jerome to have been composed by 
our author in direct opposition to the Church, 
and their contents fully confirm the statement. 
With respect to their order, we know only that 
the Tract de Monogamia was prior to that de 
Jejuniis, 105 which contains a reference to it. 

95 A. D. 198. JElii Spartiani Severus, p. 902. A. 

96 c. 1. Qui prophetias ejusdem Spiritus Sancti respuerunt. 

97 cc. 9. 11. 55. 58. There is in this Tract, c. 55. an 
allusion to the martyrdom of Perpetua, which is supposed to 
have happened about the year 203. 

98 cc. 1. 17- " c. 11. 
100 cc. 1, 2. 8. 13. 30. 101 c. 29- 
102 c. 24. 103 c. 22. 

104 c. 16. Ut docent Veteres et Novae Prophetiae. 

105 c. 1. 



m 

106 Gibbon affirms it "to be evident that 
Tertullian composed his Treatise de Corona 
long before he was engaged in the errors of 
Montanus." I am afraid that the historian was 
induced to adopt this opinion, because it as- 
sisted him in transferring the sentiments, ex- 
pressed by Tertullian, from the followers of 
Montanus to the primitive Christians in general ; 
and thereby to confirm his representation of 
their rashness and extravagances. But the allu- 
sion to the New Prophecy, in the first chapter, 
affords a complete refutation of the assertion. 
Gibbon also supposes the event, which gave 
occasion to the Treatise, to have happened at 
Carthage, when a donative was distributed 
to the soldiers by the emperors Severus and 
Caracalla ; and consequently before the title of 
Caesar was conferred on Geta ; that is, before the 
year 198. But should we allow the correctness 
of this date to be better ascertained than it 
really is, the only inference to be drawn from 
it would be, that even at that early period 
Tertullian had openly avowed his belief in the 
prophecies of Montanus. There is moreover in 
this Tract an allusion to a 107 Tract on Public 
Spectacles, which Tertullian composed in Greek ; 

106 Chapter 15. Note 49- 

107 Sed et huic materia? propter suaviludios nostros Graeco 
quoque stilo satisfecimus^ c. 6. sub fine. 



58 

if it agreed with the Latin Tract now extant, 
he was probably a Montanist when he wrote it. 
107 *Tertullian appears in the Tract de Corona 
to announce his intention of writing the Scor- 
piace. 

The second book against Marcion affords an 
example of the difficulty of accurately deter- 
mining from the Treatises themselves, whether 
the author was a Montanist when he composed 
them: for it contains no decisive marks of 
Montanism. The same remark is applicable to 
the Tract de Carne Ghristi, though we find 
108 in it an express reference to the fourth book 
against Marcion ; and 109 to the Scorpiace, in 
which we also find a reference to the works 
against Marcion. Jerome in his work against 
Vigilantius, c. 3. says that the latter Tract was 
written against the Cainites, a branch of the 
Gnostics, who appear to have spoken con- 
temptuously of martyrdom, and to have dis- 

107 * c. 1. Sed de quaestionibus confessionum alibi docebi- 
mus. 

108 c. 7> Audiat igitur et Apelles quid jam responsum sit 
a nobis Marcioni eo libello, quo ad Evangelium ipsius provoca- 
vimus. The reference is to c. 19. 

109 c. 5. Longum est ut Deum meum bonum ostendam ; 
quod jam a nobis didicerunt Marcionitae. The reference is 
to the second book. From c. 1, and c. 4, it appears that 
the Scorpiace was written during a time of persecution. 



59 

suaded Christians in times of persecution from 
exposing themselves to danger by an open pro- 
fession of their faith ; 110 contending that He was 
the true martyr, niaprvs who bore testimony to 
the Gospel by his virtuous life and conversation. 
Here then we might expect to find strong 
proofs of Tertullian's Montanism ; yet they do 
not occur. m There is in the Scorpiace an 
allusion to the establishment of the Pythian 
games at Carthage, as if it had recently taken 
place. 

If the Proculus, whom Tertullian 112 calls 
Proculus noster, and mentions with respect in 
his Treatise against the Valentinians, was the 
same to whose dispute or dialogue with Caius 
both 113 Eusebius and Jerome refer, we may 
fairly conclude that Tertullian was a Montanist 
when he composed the Treatise. 

Allix infers that the Tract de Spectaculis 
was written after Tertullian became a Mon- 
tanist, because in enumerating the privileges of 

110 Compare Irenaeus, L. iii. c. 20. L. iv. c. 64. and 
Clemens Alexandrinus, L. iv. c. 4. p. 571. 1. 10. 

111 Adhuc Carthaginem singula? civitates gratulando in- 
quietant, donatam Pythico Agone post stadii senectutem, 
c. 6. 

112 c. 5. 

113 Hist. Eccl. L. vi. c. 20. Catalogus Scriptorum Eccl. 
sub Caio. 



60 

the Christian, he mentions 114 that of asking 
revelations; from heaven. The introduction 
115 of the New Jerusalem in the last chapter, 
when compared with the final chapter of the 
fourth book against Marcion, supplies in my 
opinion far more decisive proof of his Mon- 
tanism. 116 Allix has shewn satisfactorily that 
it was written, not at Rome, but at Carthage. 
It was prior to the Tract 117 de Idololatria and 
to the 118 first book de Cultu Fceminarum, 
which contain references to it. These two 
Tracts, therefore, were probably written after 
Tertullian became a Montanist, though they 
contain no decisive marks of Montanism. 119 In 
the Tract de Idololatria, Allix fancies that he 
discovers an allusion to the festivities which 
took place at Carthage, when the birth-day of 
Geta was celebrated, in the year 203. 

The notion that three persons compose a 
Church has been 120 already mentioned as indi- 

114 c. 29. Quod revelationes petis. 

115 Qualis Civitas nova Hierusalem ? 

116 Quanta praeterea Sacra, quanta Sacrificia praecedant, 
intercedant, succedant, quot Collegia, quot sacerdotia, quot 
officia moveantur, sciunt homines illius urbis (Romae) in qua 
Daemoniorum conventus consedit, c. 7. Proinde tituli : 
Olympia Jovi, quae sunt Romae Capitolina, c. 11. Observe 
also the use of* the word Praesides in the last chapter. 

n ? c. 13. 118 c 8. 119 c. 15. 120 p. 48. 



61 

cative of Montanism. It occurs in 121 the Tract 
de Exhortatione Castitatis: yet I am led to 
infer, from a comparison of this Tract with 
that de Monogamia, that Tertullian, when he 
wrote it, had not embraced the tenets of Mon- 
tanus in all their rigour. 

Perhaps we shall not deviate very widely 
from the truth, if we adopt the following 
classification of Tertullian's works, without 
attempting to arrange them in the order in 
which they are written. 

Works probably written while he was yet 
a member of the Church. 

De Pcenitentia. 

De Oratione. 

De Baptismo. 

The two books ad Uxorem. 

Ad Mar tyres. 

De Patientia. 

Adversus Judasos. 

De Prsescriptione Haereticorum. 122 

121 c. 7. Sed ubi tres, Ecclesia est, licet Laici. Compare 
de Pudicitia, c. 21. Pamelius supposes that the three persons 
alluded to in the latter passage were Montanus, Maximilla, 
and Priseilla ; but, as it appears to me, without sufficient 
grounds. 

122 Referred to in the first book against Marcion, c. 1 . adv. 
Praxeam, c 2. de Carne Christi, c. 2. adv. Hermogenem, c. 1, 



62 



Works certainly written after he became 
a Montanist: 

First book against Marcion. 

Second book against Marcion. 123 

De Anima. 124 

Third book against Marcion. 

Fourth book against Marcion. 125 

De Carne Christi. 126 

De Resurrectione Carnis. 127 

Fifth book against Marcion. 

Adversus Praxeam. 

Scorpiace. 128 

De Corona Militis. 

De Virginibus Velandis. 

De Exhortatione Castitatis. 

De Fuga in Persecutione. 

De Monogamia. 129 ■ 

De Jejuniis. 

De Pudicitia. 

123 Referred to in the Scorpiace, c. 5. In the Treatise de 
Anima, c. 21. where the allusion is to c. 5. De Res. Carnis, 
cc. 2. 14. 

124 Referred to in the Tract de Res. Carnis, cc. 2. 17. 45. 
Compare cc. 18 and 21. 

125 Referred to in the Tract de Carne Christi, c. 7* 

126 Referred to in the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 2.- 
See also the concluding words of the Tract de Carne Christi. 

127 Referred to in the fifth book against Marcion, c. 10. 

128 In c. 4. Tertullian speaks as if he had already refuted 
all the heretics. 

129 Referred to in the Tract de Jejuniis, c. 1. 



63 

Works probably written after he became 
a Montanist: 

Adversus Valentinianos. 

Ad Scapulam. 

De Spectaculis. 130 

De Idololatria. 

The two books de Cultu, Fceminarum. 

Works respecting which nothing certain can 
be pronounced: 

The Apology. 

The two books ad Nationes. 

The Tract de Testimonio Animae. 131 

De Pallio. 

Adversus Hermogenem. 

In addition to the works already enume- 
rated, Tertullian composed others not now 
extant : 

A Treatise, entitled de Paradiso. 152 



130 Referred to in the Tract de Idololatria, c. 13. and in 
the first book de Cultu Foeminarum, c. 8. In the Tract de 
Corona^ c. 6. is a reference to the Greek Tract de Specta- 
culis. 

131 Subsequent to the Apology, see c. 5. Prior to the 
Tract de Carne Christi, in the twelfth chapter of which it 
is quoted. 

132 Mentioned in the Tract de Anima, c. 55. and in the 
fifth book against Marcion, c. 12. 



64 

Another 133 de Spe Fidelium. 

Six Books 134 de Ecstasi, and a seventh 
against Apollonius, mentioned by Jerome in 
his account of our author. 

A Tract 135 against the Apelliaci, or follow- 
ers of Apelles. 

A Tract 136 against Hermogenes, entitled de 
Censu Animse. 

In the Treatise 137 de Anima, Tertullian men- 
tions his intention of discussing the questions 
of Fate and Free- Will, upon the principles of 
the Gospel. 

Jerome mentions other works of Tertullian : 
One 138 de vestibus Aaron. 
One 139 ad Amicum Philosophum: Jerome's 
words are, Et nunc eadem admoneo, ut, si tibi 



133 Mentioned in the third book against Marcion, c. 24. 
and by Jerome in his account of Papias. 

134 There is an allusion to the books de Ecstasi in the 
fourth book against Marcion, c. 22. 

135 Mentioned in the Treatise de Carne Christi, c. 8. 

136 Mentioned in the Treatise de Anima, cc. 1. 3. 22. 24. 

137 c. 20. 

138 Epistola ad Fabiolam de veste Sacerdotali, sub fine. 

. 139 Epistola 22, ad Eustochium de Custodia Virginitatis- 
I am in doubt whether Jerome here alludes to Tracts ex- 
pressly entitled de Virginitate, or means only that Tertullian 
had in various works written on the advantages of the 
unmarried state. 



65 

placet scire quot molestiis virgo libera, quot 
uxor astricta sit, legas Tertullianum ad Amicum' 
Philosophum, et de Virginitate alios libellos, 
et beati Cypriani volumen egregium. Among 
Tertullian's works now extant, there is none 
entitled ad Amicum Philosophum ; and I should 
have supposed that Jerome referred to the 
Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis, had he not 
in his first Book against Jovinian said that 
Tertullian wrote upon the subject of celibacy 
in his youth. 

In the Index to Tertullian's works given 
in the Codex Agobardi appear the three fol- 
lowing titles : De Animae Summissione ; De 
Superstitione Sseculi ; De Carne et Anima. 
The tracts themselves are not extant in the 
MS. ; which appears at one time to have con- 
tained the Tracts de Paradiso and de Spe 
Fidelium. 

H0 Mosheim classes the Montanists amongst 
the illiterate sects : but this epithet is wholly 
inapplicable to Tertullian, who appears to 
have been acquainted with every branch of 
science and literature that was studied in his 
day. H1 Eusebius mentions particularly his 

140 Cent. II. c. 5. Sect. 23. 

141 Hist. Eccl. L. ii. c.2. 



66 

knowledge of 142 Roman law, which displays it- 
self in his frequent use of legal terms ; and 
his quotations embrace not only the poetry and 
history, but also the 145 natural philosophy and 
144 medical science of antiquity. The Greek 
language must have been familiar to him, as 
he composed in it three 145 Treatises, not now 
extant. So great indeed was his reputation 
for genius and learning that, notwithstanding 
his secession from the Church, succeeding Eccle- 
siastical writers always speak of him with 
high respect. Cyprian, as we have seen, called 
him his master, and never passed a day with- 
out reading some portion of his works. We 
cannot, however, among the merits of Ter- 
tullian, reckon that of a natural, flowing, and 
perspicuous style. He frequently hurries his 
readers along by his vehemence, and surprises 
them by the vigour, as well as inexhaustible 
fertility of his imagination ; but his copious- 

142 See the Tract de Anima, c. 6. sub fine. 

143 He appears to have been well acquainted with Pliny. 

144 See the Tract de Anima, cc. 2, 6. 

145 Those de Spectaculis (see de Corona, c. 6.) de Virgini- 
bus velandis, c 1. and de Baptismo, c. 15. For additional 
proof of his knowledge of Greek, see adv. Marcionem, L. ii. 
cc. 9, 24. L. iii. cc. 15, 22. L. iv. cc. 8, 11/14. L. v. c. 17- 
de Prescript. Haeret. c. 6. adv. Hermogenem, cc. 19, 40. adv. 
Praxeam, c. 3. ad Scapulam, c. 4. de Idololatria, c. 3. He 
sometimes speaks as if he was acquainted with Hebrew. See 
adv. Marc. L. iv. c. 39. adv. Praxeam, c. 5. adv. Jud. c. 9- 



67 

ness is without selection; and there was in 
his character a propensity to exaggeration, 
which affected his language and rendered it 
inflated and unnatural. He is indeed the harsh- 
est and most obscure of writers, and the least 
capable of being accurately represented in a 
translation. With respect to his Latinity, I 
know only one critic who has ventured to speak 
in its commendation — the late Gilbert Wake- 
field; between whom and Tertullian, widely as 
they differed upon doctrinal questions, there 
appear to have been some points of resemblance. 
Both possessed great stores of acquired know- 
ledge, which they produced in and out of 
season ; both were deficient in taste, discrimi- 
nation, and judgement. 146 In one of his letters 
to Mr. Fox, Mr. Wakefield complains that the 
" words of Tertullian, Arnobius, Apuleius, 
Aulus Gellius, and Ammianus Marcellinus, are 
usually marked in dictionaries as inelegant and 
of suspicious authority : when they are, in rea- 
lity, the most genuine remains of pure Roman 
composition," or as he had previously expres- 
sed himself, " of the language of the old 
comedians and tragedians, of Ennius and Luci- 
lius." I am far from intending to assert that 
this statement is wholly destitute of foun- 
dation. When I have myself been obliged to 

146 Letter 54. 
E 2 



68 

consult the dictionaries for the meaning of 
some strange and portentous word which 
crossed me in my perusal of Tertullian's works, 
I have occasionally found that it had been used 
by Plautus ; but the general opinion, which I 
have formed respecting Tertullian's Latinity, 
cannot be better expressed than in the words of 
the learned Ruhnken. 147 " Fuit nescio quis — 
qui se pulchre de Latina Lingua meriturum 
speraret, si verba et verborum constructiones 
ex Tertulliano — in Lexicon referret. A cujus 
sententia dici vix potest quantopere dissentiam. 
Sit Tertullianus quam velis eruditus, sit omnis 
peritus antiquitatis ; nihil impedio; Latinita- 
tis certe pessimum auctorem esse aio et con- 
firmo. At usus est sermone eo quo tunc 
omnes Afri Latine loquentes utebantur. 

Awpicrcev o e^ecrTL, coku), tois Awpieecraiv. 

Ne hoc quidem concesserim. Nam si talis 
Afrorum sermo fuit, cur, non dicam Apuleius 
et Arnobius scriptores priscae elegantiae studiosi, 
sed Cyprianus, &c. aliter locuti reperiuntur ? 
Quid ergo ? Fecit hie, quod ante eum arbitror 
fecisse neminem. Etenim quum in aliorum 
vel summa infantia tamen appareat voluntas et 
conatus bene loquendi, hie, nescio qua ingenii 

147 Praefatio ad Schelleri Lexicon. 



69 

perversitate, cum melioribus loqui noluit, et 
sibimet ipse linguam finxit duram, horridam, 
Latinisque inauditam ; ut non mirum sit per 
eum unum plura monstra in Linguam Latinam, 
quam per omnes Scriptores semi-barbaros, esse 
invecta." 

In the preceding remarks we have all along 
taken for granted that the works, the dates of 
which we have been investigating, were com- 
posed by an individual, named Tertullian. 
This fact we conceived to be established by 
testimony precisely similar to that by which 
the genuineness of the works of every author 
is ascertained — by the testimony of writers 
whose proximity to the times in which he lived, 
and whose opportunities of information ren- 
dered them competent to form a correct opi- 
nion on the subject. We are told that Cy- 
prian, who was Bishop of Carthage within 
forty years after the period at which Tertul- 
lian lived there, held his works in the high- 
est estimation ; and in confirmation of this 
statement we find that Cyprian frequently 
repeats, not only the sentiments, but even the 
words contained in the writings now extant 
under his name. We find 148 Eusebius, a dill- 

148 L. ii. c. 2. The only work of Tertullian quoted by 
Eusebius is the Apology, which he states to have been 

translated 



70 

gent enquirer into all points connected with 
Ecclesiastical history, quoting within a century- 
after Tertullian's death one of his works which 
had been translated into Greek, and speaking of 
him 149 as well known in the capital of the 
world. We find Jerome, who has left us a 
catalogue of Ecclesiastical authors accompanied 
by succinct accounts of their lives and writings, 
quoting various works of Tertullian without 
giving the slightest hint that he entertained 
a doubt of their genuineness. We find him 
quoted by 15 ° Augustine, who had resided at 
Carthage and made enquiries there respecting 
the sect which bore his name; and by subse- 
quent writers, who may be deemed too far 
removed from his time to be received as in- 
dependent witnesses. Here surely is a chain 
of testimony sufficient to satisfy even a scep- 
tical mind. It did not, however, satisfy that 
of Semler; who in a dissertation, inserted in 



translated into Greek, and with which alone he appears to 
have been acquainted. He was perhaps little versed in the 
Latin language ; and had never met with the tracts com- 
posed by Tertullian himself in Greek, which were of less 
general interest than the Apology. 

149 If we adopt the interpretation suggested by Valesius, 
after Rufinus, of the words twv /xaXta-ra iir\ 'Pco/x^? \afX7rpa)v, 
inter Latinos Scriptores celeberrimus, the inference will be 
strengthened. 

150 Liber de Haeresibus, 86« Tertullianista?. 



71 

his m edition of Tertullian's works, endeavours 
to fix a mark of spuriousness, not only upon 
them, but also upon the writings which are 
extant, under the names of Justin Martyr, and 
Irenseus. 152 His theory is, that all those works, 
though bearing the names of different authors, 
proceeded from one and the same shop esta- 
blished at Rome ; and were the produce of the 
joint labours of a set of men, who entered 
into a combination to falsify history and cor- 
rupt the Scriptures, principally with the view 
of throwing discredit upon certain persons, 
Marcion, Valentinus, &c. whom they thought 
fit to brand with the title of Heretics. This, 
it must be allowed, is a theory which, for 
novelty and singularity, will bear a comparison 
with the boldest speculations of the German 
critics. Let us, therefore, enquire upon what 
foundations it rests ; first observing that we 
neither profess, nor deem it incumbent upon 
us, to give a full and complete solution of 
all the doubts and difficulties which an inge- 

151 Halae Magdeburgicae, 1770. 

lo2 Ex una atque eadem officina quidam libri videntur pro- 
diisse quos studiosissime solebant variis et diversis Scriptoribus 
dividere. Antiquissima fuit haec Societas et impensa sive ab 
uno sive a duobus diligentia, quae cum Romano, ilia, tarn 
Graeca quam Latina, Societate nova videtur sic cohaerere ut 
communi consilio operam dederint. Sect. 10. See also the 
concluding Section. 



72 

nious mind may frame, in order to disprove 
the genuineness of works written sixteen cen- 
turies ago. Were this requisite, vain would 
be the attempt to establish the genuineness of 
any work of great antiquity ; for by the mere 
lapse of time many facts and circumstances 
are consigned to oblivion, the knowledge of 
which can alone enable us to dispel all ob- 
scurity and to reconcile all seeming contradic- 
tions. In these cases we must not expect 
demonstration, but be content to weigh pro- 
babilities and ascertain on which side the 
evidence preponderates. 

To proceed then to Semler's proofs, or 
rather surmises; for the latter appears the 
more appropriate term. He 153 first complains, 
that the allusions contained in these books to 
the life and history of their author are very 
scanty and obscure, and afford no useful in- 
formation. 154 He even insinuates, that the 
works themselves, like the writings of the 
Sophists, were mere exercises of wit ; and that 

153 Solent autem mediocria et parum luculenta esse,, quag 
horum Librorum Auctor de se et de suis rebus commemorat. 
Sect. 1. 

154 Solet enim hie Scriptor Declamatorum imitari exem- 
plum qui ipsi confingunt argument^, quod sibi desumpserunt, 
tempus, et omnes illas rerum Appendices quibus tempora 
solent commode et studiose distingui. Sect. 1. 



73 

the historical facts and marks of time were 
introduced by the author in order to give 
his fiction an appearance of reality. But this 
insinuation is utterly unsupported by proof. 
The author, whoever he may be, certainly 
meant his readers to suppose that he lived in 
the time of Severus; and his statements in 
many points accord, in none are at variance 
with the accounts handed down to us by the 
historians of that Emperor's reign. The man- 
ners and customs which he describes, the trans- 
actions to which he alludes, correspond with 
the information which we derive from other 
sources. Still his works may be wholly of 
a fictitious character ; he may have invented 
the circumstances which are supposed to have 
occasioned them — the calumnies, against which 
he defends the Christians — the persecutions, 
which he exhorts them to bear with con- 
stancy — the heretical opinions, which he under- 
takes to confute; and he may have occasion- 
ally interspersed historical facts in order to 
give his inventions an air of probability. All 
this we may allow to be possible. But what 
are we to think of the Montanism of our 
author ? was that also fictitious ? What could 
induce a member of Semler's New Roman 
Society, who comes forward at one time as 
the Apologist for Christianity and the vehe- 



74 

merit champion of Orthodoxy, to assume at 
another the character of a Separatist from the 
Church? This fact appears to be wholly irre- 
concileable with Semler's theory. It should 
also be observed, that the few notices of Ter- 
tullian's personal history which occur in his 
works are not introduced with any parade or 
in order to answer a particular purpose, but 
in that incidental manner which has usually 
been deemed most strongly indicative of truth. 

Semler next proceeds to consider Jerome's 
account of Tertullian, on which he remarks 
that, 155 had Jerome been able to discover more 
particulars of our author's life, he would cer- 
tainly have inserted them. This is by no 
means clear; for the extreme conciseness with 
which he has drawn up his notices of Eccle- 
siastical writers proves, that he made no 
laborious researches into the history of their 
lives, but contented himself with such infor- 
mation as happened to fall in his way. 
156 Semler further conjectures, that even the 
particulars in Jerome's brief account were not 

155 Hsec Hieronymus ; qui profecto, si plura requirere atque 
discere potuisset ad historiam Tertulliani facientia, haud dubie 
hie omnino perscripsisset. Sect. 2. 

156 Nisi quidem putemus talia Hieronymum ipsum conjec- 
turis reperisse ex variis horum scriptorum locis* Sect. 2. 



75 

derived from independent sources, but col- 
lected from Tertullian's works. This may be 
partly true ; he might have inferred from dif- 
ferent passages that Tertullian was born in 
Africa, resided at Carthage, and flourished 
during the reigns of Severus and Caracalla. 
But, not to mention the story respecting Cy- 
prian's admiration of Tertullian, for which he 
gives his authority, whence did he learn that 
Tertullian remained a presbyter of the Church 
until he reached the middle age of life, and 
was extremely old when he died ? It may be 
doubted whether the generality of readers, 
unless they had previously learned the fact 
from some other source, would infer, from the 
perusal of the works now extant, that Ter- 
tullian had ever been admitted to the order 
of priesthood. 

Semler finds another difficulty in Jerome's 
account, which begins thus : Tertullianus pres- 
byter nunc demum primus post Victorem et 
Apollonium Latinorum ponitur. The obvious 
meaning of these words is, that Jerome had 
at length, after enumerating so many Greek 
authors, arrived at the place which Tertullian's 
name was to occupy ; he being the first Latin 
Ecclesiastical writer after Victor and Apollo- 
nius, of whom Jerome had before spoken, 



76 

157 Semler thinks that the more accurate state- 
ment would have been, that Tertullian was 
the first presbyter who used the Latin lan- 
guage, and that this was in fact Jerome's 
meaning; an assertion in which few of his 
readers will, I conceive, be disposed to acqui- 
esce. But how, asks Semler, can Tertullian 
be called the first presbyter who used the 
Latin language, when he himself says that he 
composed several treatises in Greek? I must 
confess myself at a loss to discover the slight- 
est inconsistency between the two statements. 
If an author composes three treatises in Greek, 
and two or three and twenty in Latin, may 
he not with propriety be classed among Latin 
writers ? It is probable that Jerome had never 
met with Tertullian's Greek compositions ; it 
is nearly certain that Eusebius had not. 

" But, continues Semler, in the beginning of 
the Treatise de Testimonio Animee, the author 
alludes to certain Christian writers, who had 
employed profane literature, and appealed to 



157 Optare licet, ut Hieronymus scripsisset et narrasset 
accuratius, Tertullianus Latinorum presbyter primus est; 
nempe id vult Hieronymus eorum hominum, qui Roma? 
Latind lingua uti solebant, Tertullianus fuit primus presbyter. 
At hie idem Tertullianus Grcecarum multarum Scriptionum 
se auctorem dixit ; quomodo igitur Latinorum dicitur primus 
esse Romanus presbyter? Sect. 10. 



77 

the works of the Gentile poets and philoso- 
phers in defence of Christianity. 158 This, he 
contends, is a mere fiction of the author's brain. 
In vain, he says, shall we seek in the history 
of the Church for a confirmation of this state- 
ment ; in vain try to discover any traces of 
those learned works by which the early apo- 
logists for Christianity asserted its cause. Had 
such writings ever existed, they could not have 
been unknown to Eusebius and Jerome; who 
are, however, entirely silent on the subject." 
These are bold affirmations. Let us enquire 
how far they are supported by proof. The 
Ecclesiastical writers whom Tertullian men- 
tions by name, are 159 Justin Martyr, Tatian, 
Miltiades, and Irenaeus. All of these wrote 
Treatises in defence of Christianity against 
Paganism. The works of Justin and Tatian 

158 Confictum est hoc argumentum universum declama- 
torum more; nisi putamus hujus generis scriptores, tarn an- 
tiques, tarn frugiferos, adeo oblivioni statim addictos fuisse, 
neglectosque et deperditos omnino; ut ne Eusebius quidem 
vestigium vel notam talium scriptorum reperire potuerit, qui 
in isto opere de Preparatione Evangelica id omnino egit, quod 
hie Tertullianus dicit suo jam tempore quosdam instituisse. 
Eusebius vero nihil quicquam ejus rei didicit, nee Hiero-. 
nymus aliquid reperire potuit. Audemus, igitur, statuere 
scriptorem talia ultro conjinxisse, ex suo ingenio rem illam 
arbitratum. Sect. 10. 

159 Adversus Valentinianos, c. 5. He also mentions 
Clemens Romanus, and Hermas, but they do not appear to 
have written in defence of Christianity. 



78 

are still extant, and prove their authors to have 
been, as Lardner expresses himself respect- 
ing the latter, 160 " men of reading and well 
acquainted with the Greek learning." We are 
also in possession of the Apology of Athe- 
nagoras, and the work of Theophilus against 
Autolycus ; both of which were prior in time 
to the Apology of Tertullian, and contain, 
especially the former, frequent references to 
profane literature, as well as arguments drawn 
from the heathen philosophy, in defence of 
Christianity. But the most extraordinary part 
of Sender's statement is that which respects 
Jerome ; among whose works is 161 an Epistle, 
entitled ad Magnum Oratorem, and written 
expressly to defend his own practice of mix- 
ing together profane and sacred literature in 
his writings. In this Epistle he appeals to 
the authority of preceding Ecclesiastical writers 
who had pursued the same plan ; mentioning 
by name Quadratus and Aristides, who pre- 
sented their Apologies to the Emperor Adrian, 
and describing the work of the latter as almost 
entirely 162 composed of opinions taken from 
the philosophers. He adds, that Apollinarius, 
Dionysius of Corinth, Tatian, Bardesanes, and 

160 Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 13. 

161 Ep. 84. 

162 Contextum Philosophorum sententiis. 



79 

Irenseus, had carefully pointed out the different 
philosophical sects to which the origin of each 
heretical opinion then prevalent might be 
traced. He states, that Cyprian had even been 
censured, because in his work against Deme- 
trianus he had confined himself entirely to 
scriptural testimonies, the authority of which 
Demetrianus did not acknowledge ; and had not 
appealed to the Poets and Philosophers, whose 
authority a Heathen could not have disputed. 
The apologists for Christianity were well aware 
that no writings, which did not bespeak an 
acquaintance with the learning and philosophy 
of the age, would gain a moment's attention 
from a heathen philosopher; and they accord- 
ingly adapted their mode of reasoning to the 
temper and prejudices of the persons with 
whom they had to deal. The remarks with 
which Tertullian prefaces his Tract de Testi- 
monio Animas, are meant as an apology for 
deviating from the established course ; and ap- 
pealing, not to the speculations of the Philoso- 
phers, but to the testimony borne by the soul 
of man in favour of the doctrines of Christianity. 

" But 163 even, continues Semler, if such 
works as those to which Tertullian is supposed 

163 Pamelii sententiam vel illud evertit ; Tertullianus Roma?, 
Carthagine, tot scriptorum libellos, qui inter Graecos satis 
remoti ab istis urbibus vivebant, nancisci non potuit. Sect. 10, 



80 

to allude, had really existed, since they were 
written in Greek and at places remote from 
Rome and Carthage, he could not possibly 
have procured them." Why not? Was the 
communication between the different parts 
of the Roman Empire so difficult, that years 
must elapse before a work published in 
Greece could be known at Rome or Car- 
thage? Let us hear the opinion of Gibbon. 
Speaking of the public roads, as they existed 
in the time of the Antonines, he says 164 that 
" they united the subjects of the most dis- 
tant provinces by an easy and familiar inter- 
course." With respect to the Christians in 
particular, he 165 states that, by the institution 
of provincial Synods, which took place to- 
wards the end of the second century, a regu- 
lar correspondence was in the space of a few 
years established between the most remote 
Churches. We find accordingly the Churches 
of Vienne and Lyons well acquainted with 
the state of the Asiatic Churches; and Ire- 
nseus, the Bishop of Lyons, acting the part of 
a mediator between the latter and the Roman 
Pontiff, in the dispute which arose respecting 
the celebration of Easter. 

The mention of Irenaeus leads me to con- 

164 Chapter I. p. 51. Ed. 4to. 
1W Chapter XV. p. 491- 



81 

sider another of Semler's objections. 166 " Who, 
he asks, can read the works of Irenasus which 
are now extant, without being convinced that 
the author was alike deficient in talent and 
information ? Yet Tertullian has designated him 
as a minute enquirer into all kinds of learning 
(or doctrine). Does not this grossly inapplicable 
eulogium clearly bespeak the sophist and de- 
claimer ?" To this objection we reply, that we 
are scarcely competent to form an opinion re- 
specting the talent of Irenseus from a work which, 
with the exception of part of the first Book 
and some scattered fragments, is extant, not 
in the original, but in a barbarous Latin trans- 
lation. From the portions of the original which 
still remain, we should infer that he possessed 
one of the most useful qualifications of an 
author — that of being able to write perspi- 
cuously upon a very obscure and unpromising 
subject. What ground, moreover, is there for 
supposing that Tertullian, in pronouncing this 
eulogium upon Irenseus, referred only to the 

166 Quis autera sine taedio et stomacho legat istam decla- 
mationem, " Irenaeus., omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus ex- 
plorator??" Nos certe statuimus, hoc encomium monstro 
non carere. Ea, quae nobis supersunt, Irenaei profecto hominis 
ingenium humile et parum excultum prae se ferunt ; ista vero 
Tertulliani nostri scripta sic turgent rerum fere omnium 
copia. et varietate, ut in ipsum hoc maxime conveniat hunc 
scriptorem id diligenter egisse, ut omnium doctrinarum curi- 
osissimus explorator videretur. Sect. x. 

F 



82 

single work, now extant, against the Gnostics ? 
Eusebius 167 gives a list of other works written 
by him ; and uniformly speaks of him as a 
person to whose authority great weight was 
attached, in all Ecclesiastical concerns. 

But 168 Tertullian, it seems, was not content 
with praising ; he also borrowed from Irenaeus^ 
and that too without acknowledgement. His 
Treatise against the Valentinians is not merely 
an imitation ; it is in many places a translation 
of the first book of that author's work ; yet he 
gives not the slightest intimation of the source 
from which he has drawn so largely. How 
are we to account for this extraordinary fact? 
Only, as Semler would persuade us, by adopting 

16 7 Hist. Eccl. L. v. c. 26. 

168 Jam novae rei alius superest observation quae non parum 
facit ad illustrandam hujus suspicionis rationem. Ista enim 
Irenaei,, quae sunt nostris in manibus, scripta, si comparantur 
cum his Tertulliani nostri, mirifice conveniunt. Scimus autem 
Tertullianum istum esse illorum primum qui Irenaei nomen 
reeitant inter scriptores ; nempe omnium doctrinarum curi- 
osissimum exploratorem dicebat Irenaeum noster Tertullianus. 
Si vero ille Irenaeus Lugduni scripsit istos libros adversus 
haereses, quomodo Tertullianus isto jam tempore hoc (1. hos) 
libros oculis et manibus usurpavit suis? Quo autem jure 
sic fecit Tertullianus, ut ex Graeco illo textu Irenaei sub- 
legeret sua et Latine repeteret, quae ille creditur scripsisse 
Graece? Atque sic quideim ut ne nominaverit quidem 
Irenaeum, quem tamen Latine exscribebat ? Viderint Lectores 
quid statuendum putent de ista. causa. : nobis certe non vide- 
tur monstro carere. Sect. xii. 



83 

his theory, that there existed a club of authors ; 
who ' sent forth their own productions into the 
world under borrowed names ; and appeared 
at one time as the Greek Irenaeus, at another 
as the Latin Tertullian.' But if this were so, 
whence arises the great inequality which Semler 
himself has discovered between them? How 
comes it that, while the works of Tertullian 
exhibit 169 such an extent and variety of know- 
ledge; those of Irenaeus, according to Semler, 
betray a miserable poverty of intellect and 
learning ? 

The close resemblance between Tertullian 
and Irenaeus in the case alluded to, may, in our 
opinion, be satisfactorily accounted for. The 
design of the first book of Irenaeus, and of Ter- 
tullian's Treatise is precisely the same — to ex- 
plain the doctrine of the Valentinians respecting 
the generation of iEons : and thus, the com- 
mon subject of the two writers would natu- 
rally lead them to pursue the same order, and 
almost to use the same language. Most strange, 
indeed, is Sender's assertion, that Tertullian 
has not even named 17 ° Irenaeus ; whom he has 

169 See the quotation from Section x. in note 166. 

170 Nee undique dicemur ipsi nobis finxisse materias 
quas tot jam viri sanctitate et prsestantia insignes, nee solum 
nostri Antecessores sed ipsorum Haeresiarcharum contemporales., 
instructissimis voluminibus et prodiderunt et retuderunt : ut 

F 2 Justinus 



84 

named, even in the very passage which Semler 
quotes, in conjunction with Justin, Miltiades, 
and Proculus. He there states that all these 
writers had refuted the Valentinians ; and de- 
clares that it is his earnest wish to imitate 
them, not only in this work of faith (the refu- 
tation of heresy) but in all others. He has, 
therefore, told his reader, as plainly as he 
could, that in this Treatise he is only an imi- 
tator: and his occasional deviations from the 
statement of Irenseus convince me that he did 
not borrow from him alone, but also from 
the other writers whom he has mentioned. 

Semler, however, has other objections in 
reserve, founded on this very passage from the 
Tract against the Valentinians. 171 "How hap- 

Justinus Philosophus et Martyr, ut Miltiades Ecclesiarum 
Sophista, ut Irenaeus omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus ex- 
plorator, ut Proculus noster virginis senectae et Christianas 
eloquentiae dignitas : quos in omni opere fidei, quemadmodum 
in isto, optaverim assequi. Aut si in totum haereses nort 
sunt, ut qui eas pellunt finxisse credantur, mentietur apos- 
tolus praedicator illarum. Porro si sunt, non aliae erunt quam 
quae retractantur. Nemo tarn otiosus fertur stylo, ut mate- 
rias habens fingat. Adv. Valentin, c. 5. 

171 Section iv. note 27- Miltiades vero? Ecquid tandem 
illud est, Ecclesiarum Sophista? quid tandem est? Puta- 
musne Tertullianum legisse aliquid hujus Miltiadis ? Miltiadis 
aliquas scriptiones Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. L. v. c. 17.) ex 
Rhodone nominat contra Montanum, Priscillam et Maximillam t 
contra gentes et Judaeos ; sed contra Gnosticos aut Haereticos 
nihil. Cur ergo hie excitatur, quasi scripserit adversus Valen- 

tinianos ? 



85 

pens it, that Tertullian alludes to and speaks, 
respectfully of Miltiades, who, as we learn from 
Eusebius, composed a work expressly against 
the Prophecy of Montanus ? " This question will 
perhaps be best answered by another. Would 
not a forger of writings in Tertullian's name 
carefully have avoided such an appearance of 
inconsistency? The fact appears to be per- 
fectly reconcileable with the history and cha- 
racter of Tertullian, as far as they can be 
collected from his writings ; since, 172 at the 
very time when he was defending Montanus 
against the Church, he constantly professed his 
agreement with the Church in all fundamental 
articles of faith. It is wholly irreconcileable 
with Sender's theory. 

" But m what are we to think of the extra- 

tinianos ? Though Eusebius may not have mentioned or seen 
any work of Miltiades against the Gnostics, such a work 
may have been known to Tertullian. So this note stood in 
the first edition. I have since met with a passage in which 
Eusebius, on the authority of an anonymous author, speaks of 
Miltiades as having written against the Heretics, kou ddeXcpwv 
ce Tivaiv &<tt\ jpd./j.ij.ara Trpecr/3vT€pa Ttav B/ktooo? ■ypovoov, a 
eneluoi irpos ret kdvr] viiep r^9 d\rjdeta<; xa\ 7rpo<? rot? rore alpecreis 
eypaxjsav' Aeyco Be 'Iovcttwov, k<x\ MzAticiBov, nai Ta-rtai/ou, na\ 
KAf7/x6!/T<K, nat €T€p(»u trXeiovujv ev oh ctTracri deoXoysTTai 6 Xpicr- 
T09. Eccl. Hist. L. v.. c. 28. 

172 De Jejuniis, c. 1. 

173 Section iv. note 27- Semler introduces the passage 
quoted in note 170, by the following words : " Ipse hie scriptor 
■videtur (sicut dici solet) se prodere sicut sorex: nam hoc 

ipso 



86 

ordinary reason assigned by Tertullian for in- 
troducing the names of Miltiades and the rest ? 
He supposes that he may be charged with 
inventing the strange opinions which he im- 
putes to the Valentinians ; and thinks it neces- 
sary to guard himself against the charge, by 
appealing to the authority of Justin Martyr, &c. 
Have we not here a strong indication of the 
mere sophist and declaimer, aware that he is 
about to advance statements for which there 
is no foundation in fact, and anxious to anti- 
cipate the feeling of incredulity which their 
improbability would naturally excite?" That 
this construction should be put upon the pas- 
sage by Semler is not surprising. His theory 
required that he should so interpret it. But 
in me it excites no surprise that an author, 
who was about to detail opinions so extravagant 
as those entertained by the Valentinians, should 
apprehend that his readers might suspect him 
of attempting to impose upon them the fictions 
of his own brain as the religious tenets of 
others. In the Tract de Baptismo, we find 

ipso libro adversus Valentinianos, c. 5. sic scribit. He then 
gives the passage at length, and subjoins, Totus hie locus 
videtur aliquid monstri prodere. Si omnino Romas alibique 
vivebant homines hasretici, eos igitur non solus Tertullianus 
noverat : Christiani alii similiter hanc Haereticorum causam 
sciebant. Itaque non intelligimus qua ratione amoliatur hie 
scriptor earn suspicionem, qua dici ipse possit sibi finxisse 
materias. 



87 

Tertullian offering a similar apology for the 
extravagance of 174 an opinion which he under- 
takes to refute, and affirming with great solem- 
nity that he had himself heard it advanced. 

Semler 175 grounds another argument in sup- 
port of his theory, on the fact, that a consider- 
able portion of the third book against Marcion, 
is repeated almost word for word in the Trea- 
tise against the Jews. But the difficulties 
arising out of this fact are not greater on the 
supposition that Tertullian was the real author 
of both the works, than on the supposition 
that they were composed by others in his 
name. I know no reason why an author should 
be precluded from repeating the same argu- 
ments in the same words, when an occasion 
presents itself on which they are equally ap- 
plicable. Such was the case which we are 
now considering. Both Marcion and the Jews 
denied, though on different principles, that 
Jesus was the Messiah predicted in the Old 

174 The opinion was proposed in the form of a dilemma. 
The Apostles did not receive Christian baptism, inasmuch 
as they were baptized with the baptism of John. Either, 
therefore, the Apostles have not obtained salvation, or Christian 
baptism is not of absolute necessity to salvation. After stating 
the opinion, Tertullian adds, Audivi, Domino teste, ejusmodi, 
ne quis me tarn perditum existimet, ut ultro exagitem, libi- 
dine styli, quae aliis scrupulum incutiant, c. 12. 

175 Section ix. 



88 

Testament. Both, therefore, were to be re- 
futed by shewing that the prophecies respect- 
ing the Messiah were actually accomplished 
in him ; and this is the object of the two pas- 
sages in which we find so close a resemblance. 
When Tertullian had the argument ready stated 
and arranged to his hand, it would surely have 
been an egregious waste of time to amuse him- 
self in varying the language: especially as 
the passages in question consist entirely of 
expositions of Prophecies. He does, however, 
make such alterations as the difference of the 
circumstances under which he is writing appears 
to require. It should be observed, that the 
Treatise adversus Judeeos is expressly quoted 
by 176 Jerome, as the work of Tertullian. 

It would be foreign from the immediate 
object of this volume, to discuss the 177 reasons 
assigned by Sender for asserting, that the works 
now extant under the names of Justin and 
Irenseus contain manifest plagiarisms from 
Clemens Alexandrinus, and that they are con- 
sequently spurious. He admits that they are 
quoted as genuine by 178 Eusebius; and this 
circumstance alone will probably, in the opinion 

176 In his Comment on the ninth chapter of Daniel. 

177 Section xiv. xv. xvi. 

178 Hist. Eccl. L. v. c. 8. L. iv. c. 18. 



89 

of sober critics, outweigh a thousand conjec- 
tures unsupported by positive evidence. 

I have devoted so much time to the 
examination of Sender's Dissertation, not on 
account of 179 its intrinsic value, which I am 
far from estimating highly, but out of regard 
to the distinguished place which has been 
assigned him among Biblical critics. His object 
evidently is to destroy the authority of Justin, 
Irenaeus, and Tertullian : but he does not fairly 
and openly avow it; he envelopes himself in 
a cloud, and uses a dark mysterious language, 
designed to insinuate more than it expresses. 
The reader finds his former opinions unsettled, 
yet is not told what he is to substitute in 
their place; and is thus left in a disagreeable 
state of doubt and perplexity. 

Had Semler contented himself with saying, 
that Tertullian, in his Tract against the Valen- 
tinians, had done nothing more than copy the 
statements of preceding writers, and conse- 
quently could not be deemed an independent 
witness to the tenets of those Heretics — had 
he said, with respect to our author's writings 

179 The most valuable part of Semler's Dissertation is> 
in my opinion, that which relates to Tertullian's quotations 
from Scripture, and to the Latin Version from which he 
derived them; to this I shall perhaps recur hereafter. 



90 

in general, that the natural vehemence of his 
temper betrayed him into exaggeration, and 
caused him to indulge in a declamatory tone, 
which renders it often difficult to determine 
to what extent his expressions are to be literally 
understood, and his statements received as mat- 
ters of fact — had Sender even gone further, 
and contended that there was reasonable ground 
for suspecting that 180 Xrengeus and Tertullian 
had, either through ignorance or design, occa- 
sionally misrepresented the opinions of the 
Gnostics, and imputed to them absurdities 
and extravagances of which they were never 
guilty — had he confined his assertions within 
these limits, they would probably have met 
with the concurrence of all who are conversant 
with the subject. But when he proceeds, upon 
surmises such as we have been now consider- 
ing and in opposition to the unanimous voice 
of Ecclesiastical antiquity, to denounce the writ- 
ings of Irenseus and Tertullian as the offspring 
of fraud and imposture — as the productions of 
men who had combined together for the pur- 
pose of palming forgeries on the world — he over- 
leaps the bounds of sober and rational criticism, 
and opens a door to universal incredulity. 

180 \ye should always bear in mind, that far the greater 
portion of the work of Irenaeus is extant only in a barbarous 
Latin translation, which lies under heavy suspicions of inter- 
polation. 



CHAP. II. 



ON THE EXTERNAL HISTORY OF THE CHURCH. 



JlIaving in the preceding chapter laid 
before the reader an account of the Life and 
Writings of Tertullian, we shall now proceed, 
in conformity with the arrangement adopted by 
Mosheim, to collect from his works such pas- 
sages as serve to illustrate the external history 
of the Church during the period in which he 
flourished. x In the first place then, he bears 
explicit testimony to the wide diffusion of 
Christianity in his day. To refute the charges 
of disloyalty and disaffection to the Emperors 
which had been brought against the Christ- 
ians, he thus appeals to the patience with 
which they bore the injuries and cruelties in- 
flicted on them. 2 " Not," he says, " that we are 

1 Obsessam vociferantm* civitatem : in agris, in castellis, 
in insulis Christianos : omnem sexum, aetatem, conditionem, 
etiam dignitatem transgredi ad hoc nomen quasi detriment© 
mcerent, Apology, c. 1. 

2 Quid tamen de tarn conspiratis unquam denotastis, &c. ? 
Apology, c 37. 



92 

destitute of the means of resistance, if our 
Christian principles allowed us to resort to 
them. Though we date our existence only 
from yesterday, we have filled every part of 
your empire; we are to be found in your 
cities, your islands, your camps, your palaces, 

your forum So great are our numbers, that 

we might successfully contend with you in 
open warfare; but were we only to withdraw 
ourselves from you, and to remove by common 
consent to some remote corner of the globe, 
our mere secession would be sufficient to accom- 
plish your destruction, and to avenge our cause. 
You would be left without subjects to govern, 
and would tremble at the solitude and silence 
around you — at the awful stillness of a dead 
world." In another place Tertullian tells 5 Sca- 
pula, the Proconsul of Africa, that if the per- 
secution against the Christians were persisted 
in, the effect would be to decimate the inha- 
bitants of Carthage. 4 He elsewhere speaks also 



3 Ac Scapulam, c. 5. In c. 2. speaking of the Christians, 
he says, quum tanta hominum multitude,, pars pene major 
civitatis cuj usque, in silentio et modestia agimus. 

4 Tanta quotidie aerario augendo prospiciuntur remedia 
censuum, vectigalium, collationum, stipendiorum : nee unquam 
usque adhuc ex Christianis tale aliquid prospectum est, sub 
aliquam redemptionem capitis et sectae redigendis, quum tantse 
multitudinis nemini ignotae fructus ingens meti possit. De 
Fuga in Persecutione, c. 12. 



93 

of the immense revenue which might be col- 
lected, if each Christian was allowed to pur- 
chase the free exercise of his religion for a sum 
of money. 

After we have made all reasonable allow- 
ance for any exaggeration into which Tertullian 
may have been betrayed, either by the natural 
vehemence of his temper, or by his anxiety 
to enhance in the eyes of the Roman governors 
the importance of the cause which he is plead- 
ing, the above cited passages will justify the 
belief that the Christians in his day composed 
a numerous and respectable portion of the 
subjects of Rome. Nor were the triumphs of 
the Gospel confined within the limits of the 
Roman Empire. 5 " Christ is preached among 
the barbarians"— is the incidental, and therefore 
less suspicious expression of Tertullian. 6 "We 
witness," he says, while arguing against the 
Jews, " the accomplishment of the words of the 
Psalmist, (as applied by St. Paul), ' their 
sound is gone out into all the earth, and their 
words unto the ends of the world.' For not 
only the various countries from which wor- 

5 Et apud barbaros enim Christus. De Corona, c. 12. 

6 Adversus Judaeos, c. 7- Quern exaudierunt omnes gentes, 
id est, cui omnes gentes crediderunt, cujus et praedicatores 
Apostoli in Psalmis David ostenduntur, &c. 



94 

shippers were collected at Jerusalem on the 
day of Pentecost, but the most distant regions 
have received the faith of Christ. He reigns 
among people whom the Roman arms have 
never yet subdued : among the different tribes 
of Getulia and Mauritania, — in the furthest 
extremities of Spain, and Gaul, and Britain, — 
among the Samaritans, Dacians, Germans, and 
Scythians, — in countries and islands scarcely 
known to us by name." The language is de- 
clamatory ; yet such a representation would not 
have been hazarded, unless it had been realized 
to a considerable extent, in the actual state of 
Christianity. 

In speaking of the numerous converts 
continually added to the Church, and of 
the extension of its limits, Tertullian con- 
tents himself for the most part with simply 
stating the fact. Convinced of the divine origin 
of the Gospel, he ascribed the triumphs of the 
cross to the power of God bringing to pass in 
the fulness of time the events which hdd been 
foretold by the Prophets ; without deeming it 
necessary to go in quest of secondary causes of 
the rapid progress of Christianity. But though 
he has not expressly directed his attention to 
the developement of the means, which the 
Almighty was pleased to employ in the es- 



95 

tablishment of the empire of the Gospel, we 
may collect from his writings much interesting 
information on the subject. 

The success which attended the preaching 
of the Apostles, and their immediate successors, 
is doubtless to be principally ascribed to the 
supernatural powers, by the exercise of which 
they proved their divine commission. But the 
writings of Tertullian furnish little reason for 
supposing, that the preachers of the Gospel in 
his day were indebted for their success to the 
display of similar powers. He asserts indeed 
that Christians possessed 7 the power of expel- 
ling Daemons, of curing diseases, of 8 healing 
the wounds occasioned by the bites of serpents : 
but he casts a doubt upon the accuracy of his 
own statement by ascribing to Christians in 
general those extraordinary gifts which, even 



7 Edatur hie aliquis sub tribunalibus vestris, quern dae- 
mone agi constat. Jussus a quolibet Christiano loqui, Spiritus 
ille tarn se daemonem confitebitur de vero, quam alibi Deum 
de falso, Apology, c. 23. See also cc. 37, 43. Quod calcas 
Deos nationunr, quod daemonia expellis, quod medicinas facis, 
de Spectaculis, c. 29* de Testimonio Animae, c. 3. ad Sca- 
pulanx, c. 2. de Corona, c. 11. de Idololatria, c. 11. 

8 Nobis fides presidium, si non et ipsa percutitur diffi- 
dentia signandi statim et adjurandi et unguendi bestiae 
calcem. Hoc denique modo etiam Ethnicis saepe subvenimus, 
donati a Deo ea, potestate quam Apostolus dedicavit, quum 
morsum viperae sprevit. Scorpiace, c. 1. 



96 

in the days of the Apostles appear to have 
been confined to Them, and 9 to the Disciples 
upon whom they laid their hands. 

The miraculous powers conferred upon the 
Apostles were the credentials, by which they 
were to prove that they were the bearers of 
a new Revelation from God to man ; and thus 
to mark the commencement of a new sera in 
the order of the divine dispensations. 10 We 
might, therefore, infer from the purpose for 
which they were conferred, that they would in 

9 It is not intended by this remark to convey the idea 
that all upon whom the Apostles laid their hands were 
endowed with miraculous powers ; but that the imposition 
of hands was the mode in which the Apostles communicated 
those powers to others. See Acts vi. 6. (compared with vi. 8. 
and viii. 6.) viii. 17, 18. xix. 6. 

10 A view somewhat similar seems to have been taken by 
Pascal in the following extract from his Pensees, which has 
been pointed out to me by a learned friend. Jesus Christ 
a fait des miracles, et les Apotres en-suite, et les premiers 
Saints en on fait aussi beaucoup: parce que les Propheties 
n'etant pas encore accomplies et s'accomplissant par eux, 
rien ne rendoit temoignage que les Miracles. II etoit predit 
que le Messie convertiroit les nations. Comment cette pro- 
phetie se fut-elle accomplie sans la conversion des nations? 
et comment les nations se fussent-elles converties au Messie, 
ne voyant pas ce dernier effet des Propheties qui le prouvent ? 
Avant done qu'il fut mort, qu'il fut resuscite, et que 
les nations fussent converties, tout n'etoit pas accompli. 
Et ainsi il a fallu des miracles pendant tout ce tems-la. 
Maintenant il n'en faut plus pour prouver la verite de la 
Religion Chretienne : car les Propheties accomplies sont un 
miracle subsistant. Diverses preuves de Jesus Christ, c. 16. 



97 

process of time be withdrawn. That they have 
been withdrawn is a fact which few Protestants 
will controvert, though great difference of opi- 
nion prevails respecting the precise period to 
which we must refer this important alteration 
in the circumstances of the Church. Gibbon 
has endeavoured to convert what he terms the 
insensibility of the Christians to the cessation 
of miraculous gifts, into an argument against 
their existence at any period. "So n extra- 
ordinary an event must," he argues, " have ex- 
cited universal attention; and caused the time 
at which it happened to be precisely ascertained 
and noted. But in vain do we consult Eccle- 
siastical History, in the hope of assigning a 
limit to the period during which supernatural 
powers subsisted in the Church: we find pre- 
tensions to them advanced in every age, and 
supported by testimony no less weighty and 
respectable than that of the age which preceded 
it." The inference, which he manifestly intends 
his reader to draw, is that, as pretensions to 
miraculous gifts had been asserted in all ages, 
and continued to be asserted even at the time 
when he wrote and every reasonable man was 
convinced of their cessation, those pretensions 
were in all ages equally unfounded. 

11 Chap. xv. p. 477- Ed. 4to. We have given only the 
purport of Gibbon's observations. 

G 



98 

The argument is plausible, and is urged with 
the author's wonted ingenuity and address. Yet 
the supposition, that miraculous powers were 
gradually withdrawn from the Church, appears 
in a great measure to account for the uncer- 
tainty which has prevailed respecting the period 
of their cessation. To adopt the language of 
undoubting confidence on such a subject, would 
be a mark no less of folly, than presumption; 
but I may be allowed to state the conclusion 
to which I have myself been led, by a com- 
parison of the statements in the book of Acts, 
with the writings of the Fathers of the second 
century. My conclusion then is, that the power 
of working miracles was not extended beyond 
the disciples, upon whom the Apostles con- 
ferred it by the imposition of their hands. 
As the number of those disciples gradually 
diminished, the instances of the exercise of 
miraculous powers became continually less fre- 
quent ; and ceased entirely at the death of 
the last individual on whom the hands of the 
Apostles had been laid. That event would, 
in the natural course of things, take place 
before the middle of the second century : at 
a time when, Christianity having obtained a 
footing in all the provinces of the Roman 
Empire, the miraculous gifts conferred upon 
its first teachers had performed their appropriate 



99 

office — that of proving to the world that a. 
New Revelation had been given from heaven. 
What then would be the effect produced upon 
the minds of the great body of Christians by 
their gradual cessation ? Many would not ob- 
serve, none would be willing to observe it ; 
for all must naturally feel a reluctance to 
believe that powers, which had contributed so 
essentially to the rapid diffusion of Christianity, 
were withdrawn. They who remarked the ces- 
sation of miracles, would probably succeed in 
persuading themselves that it was only tem- 
porary, and designed by an all-wise Providence 
to be the prelude to a more abundant effusion 
of supernatural gifts upon the Church. Or if 
doubts and misgivings crossed their minds, they 
would still be unwilling openly to state a fact, 
which might shake the stedfastness of the 
friends, and would certainly be urged by the 
enemies of the Gospel, as an argument against 
its Divine Origin. They would pursue the 
plan which has been pursued by Justin Martyr, 
Theophilus, Irenaeus, &c. ; they would have 
recourse to general assertions of the existence 
of supernatural powers, without attempting to 
produce a specific instance of their exercise. 
The silence of Ecclesiastical history, respecting 
the cessation of miraculous gifts in the Church, 
is to be ascribed, not to the insensibility of 

g2 



100 

Christians to that important event, but to the 
combined operation of prejudice and policy — 
of prejudice which made them reluctant to 
believe, of policy which made them anxious 
to conceal the truth. 

Let me repeat, that I offer these observations 
with that diffidence in my own conclusions, 
which ought to be the predominant feeling in 
the mind of every enquirer into the ways of 
Providence. I collect from passages already 
cited from the book of Acts, that the power 
of working miracles was conferred by the hands 
of the Apostles only ; and consequently ceased 
with the last disciple on whom their hands 
were laid. 12 I perceive in the language of the 



12 In confirmation of this remark, I refer the reader to 
the following passages of Tertullian's works. In the Tract 
de Pudicitia, he is contending that the Church possesses 
not the power of pardoning certain offences; but foreseeing 
that the example of the Apostles, who had pardoned those 
offences, might be objected to him, he thus anticipates the 
objection. *' Itaque si et ipsos beatos Apostolos tale aliquid 
indulsisse constaret, cujus venia a Deo, non ab homine, com- 
peteret, non ex discipline, sed ex potestate fecisse." The 
meaning is, that the Apostles pardoned those offences, not 
in the ordinary course of Church-Discipline, but by a peculiar 
power vested in themselves. "Nam et mortuos suscitave- 
runt, quod Deus solus: et debiles redintegraverunt, quod 
nemo nisi Christus : immo et plagas inflixerunt, quod noluit 
Christus; non enim decebat eum saevire qui pati venerat. 
Percussus est Ananias et Elymas, Ananias morte, Elymas caeci- 
tate, ut hoc ipso probaretur Christum et haec facere potuisse. 

Sic 



101 

Fathers, who lived in the middle and end of 
the second century, when speaking on this sub- 
ject, something which betrays, if not a con- 
viction, at least a suspicion, that the power 
of working miracles was withdrawn, combined 
with an anxiety to keep up a belief of its con- 
tinuance in the Church. They affirm in general 
terms, that miracles were performed, but rarely 

Sic et prophetae caedem et cum ea mcechiam pcenitentibus 
ignoverant, quia et severitatis documenta fecerunt. Exhibe 
igitur et nunc mihi, apostolice, prophetica (f. legendum Apo- 
stolica et Prophetica) exempla, et (f. ut) agnoscam divinitatem, 
et vindica tibi delictorum ejusmodi remittendorum potestatem. 
Quod si disciplinae solius officia sortitus es, nee imperio prae- 
sidere, sed ministerio, quis aut quantus es indulgere? qui 
neque Prophetam, nee Apostolum exhibens, cares ea virtute 
cujus est indulgere, c. 21. It is evident that the whole argu- 
ment proceeds on the supposition, that the miraculous powers, 
which had been exerted by the Prophets and Apostles, no 
longer subsisted; since, if they did subsist, the individual 
possessing them might exercise the Apostolic or Prophetic 
privilege of pardoning the offences in question. Again in 
c 22. Sic enim Dominus potestatem suam ostendit : " quid 
cogitatis nequam in cordibus vestris ? Quid enim facilius est 
dicere Paralytico, Dimittuntur tibi peccata, aut surge et 
ambula? Igitur ut sciatis filium hominis habere dimitten- 
dorum peccatorum in terra potestatem, tibi dico, Paralytice, 
surge et ambula" (Matt, ix.) Si Dominus tantum de potestatis 
suae probatione curavit, ut traduceret cogitatus et ita impe- 
raret sanitatem, ne non crederetur posse delicta dimittere ; 
non licet mihi eandem potestatem in aliquo sine iisdem pro- 
bationibus credere. In the Tract de Praescriptione Haereti- 
corum, where Tertullian calls upon the Heretics to declare 
what miracles had been wrought by the founders of their 
several sects, it is worthy of remark that he does not appeal 
to any instance of the exercise of miraculous powers in 
his own day, c. 30. See also c. 44. 



102 

venture to produce an instance of a particular 
miracle. Those who followed them were less 
scrupulous, and proceeded to invent miracles; 
very different indeed in circumstances and cha- 
racter from the miracles of the Gospel, yet 
readily believed by men who were not dis- 
posed nicely to examine into the evidence of 
facts which they wished to be true. The suc- 
cess of the first attempts naturally encouraged 
others to practise similar impositions upon the 
credulity of mankind. In every succeeding age 
miracles multiplied in number, and increased 
in extravagance; till at length, 13 by their fre- 
quency, they lost all title to the name, since 
they could no longer be considered as deviations 
from the ordinary course of nature. 

But to return to Tertullian. The only spe- 
cific instances which he mentions, of the exercise 
of supernatural powers, relate to the exorcism 
of daemons. He is contending in 14 the Apo- 
logy, that the gods of the heathen are no other 
than daemons ; of which assertion he offers the 
following proof. " Bring," he says, " before your 
tribunals a man possessed with a daemon : the 
evil spirit, if commanded by a Christian, will 
speak and confess himself a daemon. In like 

13 Gibbon, c. xxviii. p. 99- Ed. 4to. 

14 c. 23. quoted in note 7- 



103 

manner produce a person supposed to be in- 
spired by one of your deities : he too will not 
dare to give a false reply to a Christian, but 
will confess that his inspiration proceeds from 
a daemon." In the 15 Tract de Spectaculis, we 
find a story of a female who went to the 
theatre, and returned possessed by a daemon. 
The unclean spirit, when asked by the exor- 
cist how he dared to assault a Christian, replied 
"I was justified in so doing, for I found her 
on my own ground 16 ." Surely if miraculous 
powers still subsisted in the Church, the writ- 
ings of Tertullian would have supplied some 
less equivocal instances of their exercise. 

Gibbon 17 has animadverted on the evasions 
of Middleton respecting the clear traces of 
visions, to be found in the Apostolic Fathers. 

15 Nam et exemplum accidit, Domino teste, ejus mulieris 
quae theatrum adiit et inde cum daemonio rediit. Itaque in 
exorcismo quum oneraretur immundus Spiritus quod ausus 
esset fidelem adgredi. " Constanter et justissime quidem, 
inquit, feci : in meo earn inveni," c. 26. 

16 See also the Tract ad Scapulam, c. 4. Nam et cujus- 
dam notarius, quum a daemone praecipitaretur, liberatus est ; 
et quorundam propinquus et puerulus. Et quanti honesti 
viri, de vulgaribus enim non dicimus, aut a daemoniis aut 
valetudinibus remediati sunt! In the Tract de Exhortatione 
Castitatis, c. 12. sub fine, is a story of a man who married 
a second wife under the idea that she was barren; but she 
proved pregnant ; preternaturally, as our author would in- 
sinuate. See also two stories in the Tract de Anima, c. 51. 

17 Chap. xv. note 71. 



104 

Yet it appears to me that Middleton might 
have admitted their existence, without any 
detriment to the main position of his Essay. 
His object was to prove, that, after the Apo- 
stolic age, no standing power of working mira- 
cles existed in the Church — that there was no 
regular succession of favoured individuals upon 
whom God conferred supernatural powers; which 
they could exercise for the benefit of the 
Church of Christ, whenever their judgement, 
guided by the influence of the Holy Spirit, 
told them that it was expedient so to do. 
This position is perfectly compatible with the 
belief that God still revealed himself in dreams 
to pious members of the Church, for their 
especial comfort and instruction. The distinc- 
tion between the two cases has been expressly 
pointed out by Middleton himself. When, 
however, we examine the visions recorded in 
Tertullian's writings, we shall feel great dif- 
ficulty in believing that they were revelations 
from heaven. 18 He mentions a Christian female 
to whom visions were frequently vouchsafed 
in the time of divine service. They related for 
the most part to points which had formed the 
subject of previous discussion. On one occa- 
sion, a question having arisen respecting the 
soul, it was exhibited to her in a corporeal state. 

18 De Anima, c. 9. 



105 

He 19 tells another story of a female, who saw in 
a dream a linen cloth, on which was inscribed, 
with accompanying expressions of reprobation, 
the name of an actor whom she had heard 
that very day at the theatre : Tertullian adds, 
that she did not survive the dream five days. 
20 An unfortunate man, whose servants, on the 
occasion of some public rejoicing, had, without 
his knowledge, suspended garlands over his 
doors, was for this involuntary offence, severely 
chastised in a vision : 21 and a female, who had 
somewhat too liberally displayed her person, 
was thus addressed by an angel in a dream, Cer- 
vices, quasi applauderet, verberans : " Elegantes, 
inquit, cervices, et merito nudse." It should be 
observed, that all these visions are introduced 
in confirmation of some opinion for which Ter- 
tullian is at the time contending. His enthu- 
siastic temper readily discovered in them indica- 
tions of a Divine Origin : the unprejudiced reader 
will probably come to a different conclusion. 

But though miraculous gifts might have 
ceased in the Church, the Almighty might 
still interpose for its protection, and for the 
advancement of its interests, by especial and 

19 De Spectaculis, c. 26. 

20 De Idololatria, c. 15. 

21 De Virginibus velandis, c. 17- 



106 

visible manifestations of his power. An instance 
of such interposition is recorded in the writ- 
ings of Tertullian, which is generally known 
by the name of the Miracle of the Thundering 
Legion. He asserts in 22 the Apology, as well 
as in 23 the Address to Scapula, that Marcus 
Antoninus became a protector of the Christians ; 
because during his expedition into Germany, 
he together with his army was preserved from 
perishing with thirst, by a seasonable shower 
of rain, procured by the prayers of his Christian 
soldiers. In support of his assertion, he appeals 
to a Letter of the Emperor, in which the 
deliverance of the army was ascribed to this 
cause ; he does not, however, affirm that he 
had himself seen the letter. The story has 
been repeated by subsequent writers; and has 
received, as might be expected, considerable 
additions in the transmission. 24 Not only were 
the Roman soldiers preserved by the seasonable 

22 At nos e contrario edimus protectorem, si literae 
M. Aurelii gravissimi imperatoris requirantur, quibus illam 
Germanicam sitim Christianorum forte militum precationibus 
impetrato imbri discussam contestatur, c. 5. 

23 Marcus quoque Aurelius in Germanica expeditione, 
Christianorum militum orationibus ad Deum factis, imbres 
in siti ilia impetravit, c. 4. 

24 Hist. Eccl. Eusebii, L. v. c. 5. Apollinarius,, who 
was prior to Tertullian, appears to have mentioned the storm 
of thunder and lightning. 



107 

shower; but the army of the enemy was. de- 
stroyed by a storm of thunder and lightning ' 
which accompanied it. 

That during the German war the Roman 
army suffered severely from want of water* 
and was relieved from a situation of great 
peril by a seasonable shower of rain, is a fact 
which does not rest on the single authority of 
Tertullian. It is recorded by several profane 
writers, and confirmed by the indisputable 
testimony of the Antonine Column. Nor was 
Tertullian singular in regarding the event as 
preternatural : the heathen historians did the 
same. But while Tertullian ascribes the deli- 
verance of the Emperor to the prayers of his 
Christian soldiers, 25 Dion Cassius gives the 
credit of it to certain magical rites performed 
by an Egyptian, named Arnuphis ; and on the 
Antonine column it is attributed to the im- 
mediate interposition of Jupiter Pluvius. This 
latter circumstance completely disproves Tertul- 
lian's statement respecting the existence of a 
letter, in which the Emperor ascribed his deli- 
verance to the prayers of his Christian soldiers — - 
a statement indeed neither reconcileable with his 
general character, nor with the harsh treatment 
experienced by the Christians during his reign, 

26 See the Epitome of Dion by Xiphilinus. Marcus Anto- 
ninus, p. 246, C. Ed. H. Steph. 1568, 



108 

Referring the reader to 26 Lardner for a full 
account of all that has been said by learned 
men on the subject of this story, I shall con- 
tent myself with remarking that, as told by 
Tertullian, it contains nothing miraculous. The 
Roman army was reduced to great extremity — 
the Christian soldiers who were present put 
up prayers to God for deliverance — and a sea- 
sonable shower of rain relieved the army from 
its perilous situation. Tertullian indeed wishes 
his reader to infer that the shower was the con- 
sequence of the prayers of the Christian soldiers ; 
that, unless they had prayed, the shower would 
not have fallen. But this is to assume an 
acquaintance with the designs of Providence, 
which man can obtain only by immediate Reve- 
lation. The pious mind, persuaded that the 
course of this world is ordered by the Divine 
governance, naturally has recourse to prayer 
in the hour of danger : and after the danger is 
passed, it pours forth its gratitude to God for 
having so ordered events as to admit of a com- 
pliance with its petitions. But it presumes not 
to ascribe such efficacy to its prayers as would 
imply that God had been induced by them to 
alter the course of his government. To represent 
events, which are in themselves of a character 
strictly natural, a storm for instance, or an 

26 Heathen Testimonies, Marcus Antoninus, Sect. 3. 



109 

earthquake, as produced by an especial inter- 
position of divine power, exerted in compliance 
with the prayers of men, is to speak the lan- 
guage, not of genuine piety, but of super- 
stition. Yet such was the language of Tertul- 
lian's day. We find in his writings numerous 
instances of the same disposition to ascribe events 
to the immediate interference of the Almighty. 
27 The Christians in Africa had been deprived 
of their burial grounds ; Tertullian represents 
a total failure of the harvest, which occurred 
shortly after, as a punishment inflicted upon 
the Pagan inhabitants for this act of injus- 
tice. 28 He accounts in a similar manner for 
an extraordinary quantity of rain which had 
fallen in the year preceding that in which his 
Address to Scapula was written. He speaks 
of flames which appeared to hang by night 
over the walls of Carthage, and of an almost 
total extinction of the sun's light at Utica, 
and discovers in them infallible presages of the 
impending wrath of Heaven. To the same 
wrath he imputes the calamities which had 
befallen those Roman governors who had been 

27 Sicut et sub Hilariano praeside, quum de areis sepul- 
turarum nostrarum adclamassent, " Areas non sint" Areae 
ipsorum non fuerunt; messes enim suas non egerunt, c. 3. 
Our author plays upon the double meaning of the word 
Area which signifies a threshing-floor, as well as an enclo- 
sure. Ad Scapulam, c. 3. 

28 Ad Scapulam, c. 3. 



110 

particularly active in their persecution of trie 
Christians. 

I shall take this opportunity of offering 
a few remarks upon another fact, not of a mi- 
raculous nature, related by Tertullian. He says, 
in 29 the Apology, that the Emperor Tiberius, 
having received from Palestine an account of 
those supernatural events which proved the 
Divinity of Christ, proposed to the Senate that 
he should be received among the deities of 
Rome— that the Senate rejected the proposal— 
that Tiberius retained his opinion, and menaced 
all who brought accusations against the Chris- 
tians. 30 In a subsequent passage Tertullian states 

29 Tiberius ergo, cujus tempore nomen Christianum in 
seculum introivit, annimtiata sibi ex Syria Palestina, quae 
illic veritatem illius divinitatis revelaverant, detulit ad Sena- 
turn cum praerogativa sufiragii sui. Senatus, quia non ipse pro- 
baverat, respuit. Caesar in sententia mansit, comminatus peri- 
culum accusatoribus Christianorum, c. 5. In this passage 
Pearson would read " quia non in se probaverat," for ' c quia 
non ipse probaverat/' and interpret the sentence thus : The 
Senate rejected the proposal, because Tiberius had not approved 
a similar proposal in his own case — had himself refused to 
be deified. Lardner contends that this must be the meaning, 
even if ipse is retained. But a sentence which precedes, 
" Vetus erat decretum, ne qui Deus ab Imperatore consecra- 
retur, nisi a Senatu probatus," shews that ipse refers to 
Senatus : the Senate refused, because it had not itself approved 
the proposal; and so the passage was translated in the 
Greek Version used by Eusebius. 

30 Ea omnia super Christo Pilatus, et ipse jam pro sua con- 
scientia Christianus, Caesari tunc Tiberio nuntiavit Sed et 

Caesares 



Ill 

that the account was sent to Tiberius by Pilate, 
who was in his conscience a Christian; and 
adds an expression which implies that worldly 
considerations alone prevented Tiberius from 
believing in Christ. The story is repeated by 
51 Eusebius, who appeals to Tertullian as his 
authority for it. 32 Lardner, after a detailed ex- 
amination of the objections which have been 
made to its truth, pronounces it deserving of 
regard. 35 Mosheim also seems to be of opinion 
that it ought not to be entirely rejected. Gib- 
bon treats it as a mere fable ; but some of his 
arguments appear to me far from convincing. 
One is founded on a misrepresentation of Ter- 
tullian's statement : M " We are required," says 
Gibbon, " to believe that Tiberius protected the 
Christians from the severity of the laws many 
years before such laws were enacted, or before 
the Church had assumed any distinct name or 
existence." Now Tertullian says not a word 
about any protection, from the severity of the 
laws, afforded by Tiberius to the Christians; 



Caesares credidissent super Christo, si aut Caesares non essent 
seculo necessarii, aut si et Christiani potuissent esse Caesares,, 
c. 21. 



31 Hist. Eccl. L. ii. c. 2. 

32 Heathen Testimonies, c. 2. 

33 Ecclesiastical History, Cent. I. c. 4. 

34 Chap. xvi. p. 556. Ed. 4to. 



112 

he merely says, that Tiberius threatened all 
who accused them. This threat appears to me 
to have referred to the inveterate hostility ma- 
nifested by the Jews against Christ and his 
Disciples ; which had come to the emperor's 
knowledge through the account transmitted by 
Pilate. Tertullian could not intend to say that 
any laws against the Christians were in force 
during the reign of Tiberius ; since he has de- 
clared 55 more than once that Nero was the first 
emperor who enacted any such laws. I must, 
however, confess my own opinion to be that 
the story is liable to just suspicion. It rests 
entirely on the authority of Tertullian. How 
happened it that so remarkable a fact, as a 
public proposal from the Emperor to the Senate 
to receive Christ among the Gods of Rome, 
escaped the notice of every other writer? 
Justin Martyr, who 56 on two different occasions 
appeals to what he calls the Acts of Pilate, in 
confirmation of the Gospel-narrative of our 
Saviour's sufferings and miracles, is silent re- 
specting the proposal of Tiberius to the Senate. 

But to proceed with the information sup- 
plied by Tertullian's works respecting the 

35 Apology, cc. 5. 21. ad Nat. L. i. c. 7- Scorpiace, c. 15. 

36 Apol. I. pp. 76. C. 84. C. The Acts of Pilate here referred 
to were the daily transactions of his government, registered in 
a book, a copy of which was probably sent to Rome. 



113 

causes which contributed to the rapid growth 
of Christianity, during the latter part of the 
second century. We have seen that they fur- 
nish no ground for ascribing the success of its 
teachers at that period to the exercise of 
miraculous powers. They enable us, however, 
to ascertain, that by the pious zeal and dili- 
gence of its professors, powerful engines had 
been set at work to promote the diffusion of 
the Gospel. Of these, 37 Mosheim has noticed 
two : the translation of the New Testament into 
different languages, and the composition of nu- 
merous Apologies for the Christian Faith. The 
writings of Tertullian, which contain quotations 
from nearly all the Books of the New Testa- 
ment, 38 render it highly probable that a Latin 
translation existed in his day. By such a trans- 
lation the history and doctrines of the Gospel 
would be rendered accessible to a large portion 
of the subjects of the Roman empire, who had 

3 7 Century II. Part I. c. i. 

38 Semler indeed insinuates that the works, extant under 
Tertullian's name, contain the first specimens of a Latin trans- 
lation. " Itaque videmur hie ipsa primordia Latino? Transla- 
tion™ occupare et deprehendere." And again, "Aut illud 
scivit (Tertullianus) tarn panca esse adhuc ,Evangelii Latini 
exemplaria (nulla forte alia, quam hoc primum, suum ipsius) 
&c." Sect. 4. Yet he asserts that Tertullian, or whoever the 
author might be, never used a Greek MS.; De eo enim satis 
jam certi sumus, etsi solent viri docti aliter statuere, hunc 
scriptorem oculis suis manibusque nunquam usurpasse Grae- 
cum ullum codicem Evangeliorum aut Epistolarum, &c. Ibid. 

H 



114 

previously derived their notions of the New 
Religion only from report; and that perhaps 
the report of enemies, anxious to misrepresent it. 
They were now enabled to judge for them- 
selves, and to perceive how admirably all its 
precepts are adapted to promote the well-being 
of society, and to diffuse universal happiness. 
The favourable impression, produced upon the 
minds of men by the perusal of the Sacred 
Books, was doubtless confirmed and increased 
by the numerous Apologies for Christianity, to 
which Mosheim alludes. Among these the 
Apology of Tertullian has always held a dis- 
tinguished place ; and there is perhaps no better 
mode of conveying to the mind of the reader 
an accurate notion of the general condition of 
the Christians in the second century — of the 
difficulties with which they had to contend, 
and of the principles on which they acted — 
than by laying before him a brief summary 
of its contents. It will be necessary, however, 
to offer by way of preface a few remarks 
respecting what may be called the Legal Posi- 
tion of the Christians at that period; or the 
point of view in which they were regarded 
by the Roman laws. 

Mosheim 39 says, that "in the beginning 

39 Century II. Part I. c. 2. 



115 

of the second century there were no laws in 
force against the Christians ; for the Senate 
had annulled the cruel edicts of Nero, and 
Nerva had abrogated the sanguinary laws of 
his predecessor Domitian." 40 Gibbon also 
infers from Pliny's celebrated letter to Tra- 
jan, that, when the former accepted the govern- 
ment of Bithynia, " there were no general laws 
or decrees of the Senate in force against the 
Christians; and that neither Trajan nor any 
of his virtuous predecessors, whose edicts were 
received into the civil and criminal jurispru- 
dence, had publicly declared their intentions 
concerning the new Sect." If, however, we 
can attach any weight to the statements of 
Tertullian, the conclusions both of Gibbon 
and Mosheim are erroneous. In 41 the first 
Book ad Nationes, Tertullian expressly says, 
that, while all the other edicts of Nero had 
been repealed, that against the Christians alone 
remained in force. In the 42 Apology, after 
having stated that Nero and Domitian were 

40 Chap. xvi. p. 540. Ed. 4to. 

41 Et tamen permansit, omnibus erasis, hoc solum institu- 
tum Neronianum, &c. c. 7- Compare the Apology, c. 4. 
Sed quoniam, quum ad omnia occurrit Veritas nostra, pos- 
tremo legum obstruitur auctoritas adversus earn, &c. 

42 c. 5. Tertullian says that Domitian' s persecution was 
of short duration, and that the Emperor himself put a stop 
to it. 

H2 



116 

the only emperors who had persecuted the 
Christians, he says, 43 as we have already seen, 
that Marcus Antoninus became their protector 
in consequence of the miraculous deliverance 
of his army in the German expedition. 44 "Not," 
he adds, "that the emperor abrogated the 
punishment enacted against them ; but he indi- 
rectly did away its effect, by denouncing a hea- 
vier punishment against their accusers. What 
then," our author proceeds, " are we to think of 
laws which none but the impious, the unjust, 
the vile, the cruel, the trifling, the insane 
enforce? of which Trajan partly frustrated the 
effect by forbidding all enquiries to be made 
after Christians ? which neither Adrian, though 
a searcher out of all new and curious doc- 
trines, nor Vespasian, though the conqueror of 
the Jews, nor Pius, nor Verus, called into oper- 
ation?" The whole tenor of this passage mani- 

43 p. 106. 

44 Sicut non palam ab ejusmodi hominibus poenam dimo- 
vit, ita alio modo palam dispersit, adjecta etiam accusato- 
ribus damnation^ et quidem tetriore. Quales ergo leges istce, 
quas adversus nos soli exequuntur impii, injusti, turpes, truces,, 
vani, dementes ? quas Trajanus ex parte frustratus est, vetando 
inquiri Christianos; quas nullus Hadrianus, quanquam curi- 
ositatum omnium explorator ; nullus Vespasianus, quanquam 
Judaeorum debellator ; nullus Pius, nullus Verus impressit. 
Apol. c. 5. Quoties enim in Christianos desaevitis, partim ani- 
mis propriis, partim legibus obsequentes ? c. 37- Quis deni- 
que de nobis alio nomine queritur ? quod aliud negotium 
patitur Christianus, nisi suae sectae? Ad Scapulam, c. 4. 



117 

festly assumes the existence of laws which, 
though generally allowed to slumber by the 
justice and humanity of the emperors, might 
yet at any moment be converted into instru- 
ments wherewith to injure and oppress the 
Christians. It is evident also from 45 Pliny's 
letter and Trajan's answer, that the only offence 
laid to their charge by the informers was their 
religion ; and that, in the estimation both of the 
emperor and the proconsul, the mere profession 
of Christianity constituted a crime deserving 
of punishment. 

But whether there were, or were not, 
any laws in force, expressly directed against 
the Christians, it is certain that their situ- 
ation was most precarious. It appears indeed 
to have depended in a great measure on the 
temper and disposition of the governor of the 
province in which they lived. If he happened 
to be rapacious, or bigotted, or cruel, it was 
easy for him to gratify his favourite passion, by 
enforcing against the Christians the penalties of 
laws, originally enacted without any reference 

45 Pliny's words are, Interrogavi ipsos an essent Christiani ; 
confitentes iterum ac tertio interrogavi, supplicium minatus: 
perseverantes duci jussi. Neque enim dubitabam, qualecun- 
que esset quod faterentur, pervicaciam certe et inflexibilem 
obstinationem debere puniri. L. x. Ep. 97. Trajan answers, 
Conquireridi non sunt; si deferantur et arguantur, puniendi 
sunt. 



118 

to them; such, for instance, as 46 Trajan's edict 
against companies and associations, and the 
47 law which forbade the introduction of any 
new Deity, whose worship had not been ap- 
proved by the Senate. 48 If on the contrary he 
was just and humane, he discountenanced all 
informations against them, suggested to them 
the answers which they ought to return when 
brought before the tribunals, and availed him- 
self of every pretext for setting them at liberty, 
Thus while in one part of the empire they 
were suffering the most dreadful persecution, 
in another they were at the very same moment 
enjoying a certain degree of ease and security. 
49 For even the power of the governors was 

46 See Pliny's Letter above cited, and the Apology, cc 
38, 39, 40. where our author complains of the injustice of 
classing the Christians among the illegal associations, illi- 
citae factiones. See also the Tract de Jejuniis, c. 13. Nisi 
forte in Senatus-consulta et in Principum mandata, coitionibus 
opposita, delinquimus. 

47 See the Apology, c. 5. quoted in note 29- of this Chapter. 

48 In the Address to Scapula, c. 4. are recorded the names 
of several governors, who displayed great lenity in their 
treatment of the Christians; but the latter appear to have 
regarded the evasions, suggested by the kindness of their 
judges, with distrust, as the devices of Satan to shake their 
stedfastness and to betray them into a criminal compromise 
of their faith. See the Apology, c. 27- Scorpiace, c. 11. 

49 Quoties etiam, praeteritis vobis, suo jure nos inimicum 
vulgus invadit lapidibus et incendiis ? Apology, c. 37- Neque 
enim statim et a populo eris tutus, si officia militaria rede- 
meris. De Fuga in Persec. c. 14. Odisse debemus istos con- 
ventus et ccetus Ethnicorum, vel quod illic noraen Dei 

blasphematur. 



119 

not always sufficient to ensure their safety, or 
to prevent them from falling victims to the 
angry passions of the populace ; at all times dif- 
ficult to be repressed, but rising to an un- 
governable pitch of fury at the celebration of 
the public games and festivals. On these oc- 
casions the intimidated magistrates too often 
deemed it expedient to yield to the clamorous 
demands of the multitude ; and to gratify their 
sanguinary impatience by suspending the tardy 
forms of law, and delivering the Christians to 
instant death. 

The Apology of Tertullian is, 50 as has been 
already observed, addressed to the governors of 
Proconsular Africa, and we learn 51 from the 
commencement that their attention and jea- 
lousy had been excited by the increasing num- 
ber of the Christians ; but that, instead of 
being induced to enquire into the real nature 
of a religion which attracted so many proselytes, 
they suffered themselves to be hurried away by 
their prejudices, and condemned it unheard. 
52 So great indeed was their ignorance, that 
they mistook even the name of the new sect; 

blasphematur, illic in nos quotidiani leones expostulantur, 
inde persecutiones decernuntur, inde tentationes emittuntur. 
De Spectaculis, c. 27. 

50 Chap. I. p. 52. 51 c. 1. 52 c. 3. 



120 

calling those who belonged to it, not Chris- 
tian^ but Chrestiani. 53 Tertullian exposes, 
with great power of argument and eloquence, 
the injustice of punishing Christians merely 
because they were Christians ; without en- 
quiring whether their doctrines were in them- 
selves deserving of hatred and punishment. 
54 He complains that in their case alone all the 
established forms of law were set aside, and all 
the rules usually observed in the administration 
of justice violated. Other criminals were heard 
in their own defence, and allowed the assistance 
of counsel; nor was their own confession 
deemed sufficient to their condemnation. The 
Christian, on the contrary, was simply asked 
whether he was a Christian ; and either his 
sentence was pronounced as soon as he had ad- 
mitted the fact ; or such was the strange infatu- 
ation of the judges, the torture was inflicted in 
order to compel him to retract his confession 
and deny the truth : whereas in all other cases, 
torture was applied in order to extract the truth, 
and to compel the suspected party to confess his 
guilt. Tertullian dwells for some time upon 
the gross injustice of these proceedings ; as well 
as upon the inconsistency exhibited by Tra^- 
jan in his letter to Pliny ; in which, at the very 
moment that he forbade all search to be made 

53 c. 1. 5i c. 2. Compare ad Scapulam, c. 4. 



121 

after the Christians, he ordered them to be 
punished as malefactors when brought before 
the tribunals. 

The Apology furnishes many striking proofs 
of the unreasonableness and blindness of the 
hatred, which the enemies of the Gospel had 
conceived against its professors. 55 The Chris- 
tians were accused of the most heinous crimes ; 
of atheism, infanticide, of holding nocturnal 
meetings in which they abandoned themselves 
to the most shameful excesses. In vain did 
they challenge their opponents to make good 
these horrible charges. In vain did they urge 
the utter improbability that any body of men 
should be guilty of such atrocious, such unna- 
tural acts ; especially of men, the fundamental 
article of whose belief was that they should here- 
after be summoned before the judgement-seat 
of God, there to give an account of the deeds 
done in the flesh. 56 " You are determined," 
says Tertullian, " to close your eyes against 
the truth, and to persist in hating us with- 
out a cause. You are compelled to witness the 
salutary influence of Christianity, in the reform- 

55 cc. 1, 7, 8. One of the opprobrious appellations applied 
to the Christians was " Tertium Genus/' the precise mean* 
ing of which Tertullian does not appear himself to have under- 
stood. Ad Nationes, L. i. cc. 7, 8, 19- See also Scorpiace, 
c. 10. De Virgin, vel. c. 7. 5fJ c. 3. 



122 

ed lives and morals of those who embrace it ; 
but you quarrel with the effect, however be- 
neficial, in consequence of your hatred of the 
cause from which it proceeds. Even virtue 
ceases in your estimation to be virtue, when 
found in a Christian : and you are content that 
your wives shall be unchaste, your children dis- 
obedient, and your slaves dishonest, if they are 
but careful to abstain from all communication 
with this detested sect." 

Tertullian 57 alludes to an ancient law, 
which prohibited even the emperor from 
introducing the worship of any new Deity, 
unless it had been previously approved by 
the Senate. As the worship of Christ had 
not received this preliminary sanction, the 
Christians, by the profession of their religion, 
manifestly offended against the law ; and 
Tertullian speaks as if this was the prin- 
cipal ground of the accusations against them. 
It was not, however, their sole offence: they 
were charged, not only with introducing a new 
deity, but with abandoning the gods of their 
ancestors. Tertullian replies, that the accusa- 
tion came with an ill grace from men, who 
were themselves in the daily habit of dis- 
regarding and violating the institutions of 

5 ? cc. 5, 6. Seep. 118. 



123 

antiquity ; but he does not attempt to deny its 
truth. 58 On the contrary, he boldly maintains 
that the Christians had done right in re- 
nouncing the worship of Gods, who were in 
reality no gods ; but mortals to whom divine 
honours had been ascribed after death, and 
whose images and statues were the abode of 
evil spirits, lurking there in ambush to destroy 
the souls of men. 

The 59 absurdity and extravagance of the 
Heathen Mythology open to Tertullian a wide 
field for the exercise of his eloquence and wit : 
and while at one time he ironically apologises 
for the readiness with which the magistrates 
and people gave credit to the horrible reports 
circulated against the Christians, on the ground 
that they believed stories equally horrible re- 
specting their own Deities ; at another he 
warmly inveighs against the gross inconsistency 
of imputing to a Christian as a crime, that 
which was not deemed derogatory to the cha- 
racter of a God. 

But 60 the prejudice and bigotry of the ene- 
mies of the Gospel induced them, not only to 
believe the most atrocious calumnies against 

58 cc. 10, 11, 22, 23, 27- 59 cc. 12, 13, 14, 15, 

60 c. 16. 



124 

its professors, but also to entertain the most 
erroneous and ridiculous notions respecting the 
objects of Christian worship. Not content with 
falling into the double error, first, of confound- 
ing the Christians with the Jews, and next of 
receiving as true the idle tales related by 

61 Tacitus respecting the origin and fortunes of 
the Jewish people, they persisted in accusing 
the Christians of worshipping the head of an 
ass : although, as our author justly observes, 

62 the Homan historian had himself furnished 
the means of disproving his own statement; 
by relating that, when Pompey visited the 
temple of Jerusalem, and entered the Holy of 
Holies, he found there no visible representation 
of the Deity. Since they could give credit 
to so palpable a falsehood, we cannot be sur- 
prized at their believing that the Sun and the 
cross were objects of worship in the New Reli- 
gion — a belief, to which the forms of Christian 
devotion might appear to an adversary to lend 
some countenance. In replying to these calum- 
nies, 63 Tertullian takes the opportunity of stating 
in spirited and eloquent language, the Christian 
notions of the Deity ; and of insisting upon 
the genuineness and antiquity of the Jewish 
Scriptures, by which the knowledge of the 

61 Hist. L. v. c. 4. 6 2 Hist. L. v. c. 9. 

63 cc. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21. 



125 

one supreme God, of the creation of the world, 
and of the origin of mankind, had been pre-' 
served and transmitted from age to age. 64 The 
superior antiquity of Moses and the Prophets to 
the poets and legislators of Greece is repeatedly 
urged by our author, as an irrefragable proof, 
(weak as the argument may appear to us) of 
the superior claim of the Mosaic institutions 
to be received as a revelation from heaven. 

It has been remarked that the treatment 
of the primitive Christians formed a solitary 
exception to that system of universal tolera- 
tion, which regulated the conduct of the Homan 
government towards the professors of other 
religions. 65 Gibbon appears to have assigned 
the true reason of this deviation from its usual 
policy, when he observes that while all other 
people professed a national religion, the Chris- 
tians formed a sect. The ^Egyptian, though he 
deemed it his duty to worship the same birds 
and reptiles to which his ancestors had paid their 
adorations, made no attempt to induce the in- 
habitants of other countries to adopt his deities. 
In his estimation the different superstitions of 
the heathen world were not so much at vari- 
ance that they could not exist together. He 
respected the faith of others, while he preferred 

64 c. 47. 65 Chap. xvi. p. 523. Ed. 4to. 



126 

his own. But Christianity was from its very 
nature a proselyting religion. The convert not 
only abandoned the faith of his ancestors, and 
thereby committed an unpardonable offence in 
the eyes of a Gentile ; but also claimed to him- 
self the exclusive possession of the truth, and 
denounced as criminal every other mode of 
worship. When we consider this striking dis- 
tinction between the character of Christianity, 
and of every other form of religion then exist- 
ing, we shall feel less surprise that it was 
regarded by the ruling powers with peculiar 
feelings of jealousy and dislike, or that it was 
excepted from the general system of toleration. 
66 In vain did Tertullian insist upon the right 
of private judgement in matters of faith ; in 
vain expose the strange inconsistency of tole- 
rating the absurd superstitions of iEgypt, and 
at the same time persecuting the professors of 
a religion, which inculcated the worship of one, 
pure, spiritual, omniscient, omnipotent God, — 
a God in every respect worthy to receive 
the adorations of intelligent beings. By thus 
asserting that the God of the Christians 
was the only true God, he unavoidably de- 
stroyed the effect of his appeal to the under- 
standing, the justice, and the humanity of the 
Roman governors. 

m cc, 24, 28. ad Scap. c. 2. 



127 

Sometimes the Christians fell into an error 
not uncommon with very zealous advocates ; ' 
they urged arguments which were easily re- 
torted upon themselves, and were even con- 
verted into pretences for persecuting their 
religion. 67 We have seen that they were in 
the habit of accounting for events by the 
immediate interposition of Providence: of 
ascribing favourable events to their own prayers, 
and calamities to the divine displeasure, ex- 
cited by the cruelties inflicted upon them. 
68 The Pagans, in answer, appealed to the con- 
tinually increasing power and glory of Rome, 
during the seven centuries which preceded 
the birth of Christ; and contended that this 
long series of prosperity was to be attributed 
solely to that piety towards the gods, which 
had always formed a striking feature in the 
national character. 69 " But how," they asked, 
"are we to account for the calamities by which 
the empire has been visited, since the odious 
sect of Christians appeared ? How, but by their 
impiety and crimes, which have drawn down 
upon us the wrath of Heaven? By tolerating 
their existence we have in fact become par- 
takers of their guilt. Let us then hasten to 
repair our error ; and to appease the displeasure 
of the gods by utterly rooting out their enemies 

67 p. 109. 68 cc. 25, 26. 69 c. 40. 



128 

from the earth." The stated returns of the 
public games and festivals were, 70 as has been 
already observed, the occasions on which the 
blind and inhuman zeal of the deluded popu- 
lace displayed itself in all its ferocity. Every 
feeling of compassion was then extinguished ; 
and the cry of " Christianos ad Leonem" 
resounded from every part of the crowded 
amphitheatre. 

Another 71 ground of accusation against the 
Christians was, that they refused to sacrifice 
to the gods for the safety of the Emperor. 
Tertullian admits the fact ; but answers that 
their refusal arose, not from any feeling of 
disrespect or disaffection, but from the well- 
grounded conviction that the gods of the hea- 
then were mere stocks and stones, and con- 
sequently incapable of affording the Emperor 
protection. " Far from being indifferent to his 
welfare, we put up daily petitions in his behalf, 
to the true, the living, the eternal God; in 
whom kings reign, and through whose power 
they are powerful. To that God we pray, in 
full confidence that he will hear our prayers, 
and grant the Emperor a long life, a peaceful 
reign, and every public and private blessing." 
" Do not," Tertullian adds, " trust merely to my 

7° p. 119. 7i c. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. 



129 

assertions : consult our sacred books : you will 
there find that we are expressly enjoined to 
pray for kings and those in authority." 

As 1? the Christians cautiously abstained from 
every act which in the least approximated to 
idolatry, the seasons of public festivity were 
to them seasons of the most imminent danger. 
Their abhorrence of every species of excess, 
their refusal to join in obstreperous or indecent 
expressions of joy, to illuminate their houses 
in the day-time, or to hang garlands over their 
doors, were construed by their adversaries into 
certain marks of disloyalty. Tertullian answers 
this charge by appealing to the uniform tenor 
of their conduct ; " a less equivocal proof," he 
adds, "of our affection towards our Sovereign, 
than those outward demonstrations of joy 
75 which have been displayed in our own time, 
by men who at the very moment were plotting 
his destruction. As our religion teaches us to 
disregard and despise the honours and riches of 
this world, we are not liable to be led astray 
by those feelings of avarice and ambition, which 
impel others to disturb the public tranquillity ; 
and if you would take the trouble of inform- 
ing yourselves of what passes in our assem- 

72 cc. 35, 36. 38, 39. 73 Ad Scapulam, c. 2. 

I 



130 

blies, and at our love-feasts, far from finding 
reason to view them with jealousy as dan- 
gerous to the State, you would acknowledge 
that their necessary tendency is to increase 
our love towards God and towards our neigh- 
bour; to make us better men and better sub- 
jects." 

But 74 though the enemies of the Gospel 
might be compelled to allow that a Christian 
was a peaceable, they still accused him of 
being an unprofitable citizen. The charge, 
however, if we may judge from Tertullian's 
answer, resolved itself principally into this, that 
the Christians brought no offerings to the 
Temples ; and contributed nothing towards de- 
fraying the expenses of the public games, or 
to the support of those trades which were more 
immediately connected with the pomps and cere- 
monies of idolatry. In his remarks upon this 
charge, Tertullian expressly affirms that the 
Christians in his day did not affect a life of 
solitude and abstraction; but dwelt in the 
world, and laboured in their several callings 
and occupations, like other men. In like man- 
ner, they disclaimed all singularity of dress or 
diet ; freely using the gifts of Providence, but 

< 4 cc. 42, 43, 44, 45. 



131 

careful not to abuse them. " They indeed," 
says Tertullian, " who minister to the vicious 
and criminal passions of mankind — pimps, assas- 
sins, and fortune-tellers — may complain with 
truth that the Christians are unprofitable to 
them. But all who think that the best man 
is the most useful citizen, must admit the 
claim of the Christian to that character, whose 
religion teaches him that, not only his actions, 
but his very thoughts must be pure; and 
who regulates his conduct by a reference, not 
to the imperfect laws of man, the penalties 
of which he might hope to evade, but to the 
perfect law of that God, from whom nothing 
can be hid, and whose vengeance it is impos- 
sible to escape." 

Unable 75 either to fix any stain upon the 
morals of the Christians, or to substantiate 
the charges of irreligion and disloyalty against 
them, their enemies proceeded in the last place 
to undervalue Christianity itself, and to repre- 
sent it as a mere species of philosophy. " The 
philosophers," they said, " inculcate innocence, 
justice, patience, sobriety, charity ; and what 
do the Christians more ?" "Be it so," is Tertul- 
lian's reply : " why then do you deny to us alone 

75 c. 46. 
I 2 



132 

the indulgence which you extend to every 
other sect? But look at the effects of Chris- 
tianity, and you will be forced to confess that 
it is something more than a species of philo- 
sophy; how otherwise can you account for 
the altered lives and morals of its professors — 
a change which philosophy has never yet pro- 
duced in its votaries?" 

The 76 conclusion of the Apology points 
out to us one cause of the rapid growth of 
Christianity, which has been overlooked by 
Mosheim — the admirable courage and constancy 
with which the Christians bore the torments 
inflicted upon them by their persecutors. 
" Proceed," says Tertullian to the provincial 
governors, " proceed in your career of cruelty ; 
but do not suppose that you will thus accom- 
plish your purpose of extinguishing the hated 
sect. We are like the grass ; which grows the 
more luxuriantly, the oftener it is mown. 

76 c. 50. In the Scorpiace, our author argues, as if suf- 
ferings, voluntarily endured in the defence of a religion, prove 
not merely the sincerity of the sufferer's persuasion, but also 
the truth of the religion. Cseterum pati oportebat omnem 
Dei praedicatorem et cultorem qui ad Idololatriam provocatus 
negasset obsequium, secundum illius quoque rationis statum, 
qua et prsesentibus tunc et posteris deinceps commendari veri- 
tatem oportebat, pro qua fidem diceret passio ipsorum Defen- 
sorum ejus, quia nemo voluisset occidi, nisi compos veritatis, 
c. 8. 



m 

The blood of Christians is the seed of Chris- 
tianity. Your philosophers taught men to 
despise pain and death by words ; but how 
few their converts compared with those of the 
Christians, who teach by example ? The very 
obstinacy with which you upbraid us is the 
great propagator of our doctrines. 77 For who 
can behold it, and not enquire into the nature 
of that faith which inspires such supernatural 
courage? Who can enquire into that faith, 
and not embrace it? who can embrace it, and 
not desire himself to undergo the same suffer- 
ings in order that he may thus secure a par- 
ticipation in the fullness of the divine favour ?" 

I cannot 78 quit this part of my subject with- 
out briefly noticing Gibbon's remarks on the 
Apologies published by the early Christians, 
in behalf of themselves and their religion. 
He admits that they expose with ability the 
absurdities of Polytheism; and describe with 
eloquence and force, the innocence and suffer- 
ings of their brethren. But when they at- 
tempt to demonstrate the divine origin of 
Christianity, then in his opinion they entirely 
fail; and the only feeling, which they excite 
in the mind of the reader, is regret that the 

77 Compare ad Scapulam, c. 5. 

78 Chap. xv. near the end. 



134 

causa was not defended by abler advocates. He 
particularly blames them for insisting more 
strongly upon the predictions which announced, 
79 than upon the miracles which accompanied 
the appearance of the Messiah. But in these 
remarks the Historian seems to me to proceed 
upon the erroneous supposition, that the Apo- 
logy of Tertullian, and other works of a similar 
nature, were designed to be regular exposi- 
tions of the evidences of Christianity. Such 
an idea never entered into the writer's mind. 
His immediate business was to defend Chris- 
tianity against the attacks of its enemies — to 
correct their misrepresentations, and to refute 
their calumnies— to persuade them that it was 
not that combination of folly and crime which 
they supposed it to be — that in a word they 
were bound to examine, before they con- 
demned it. The object, therefore, at which he 
principally aimed was, not to marshal its evi- 
dences, but to give a full and perspicuous ac- 
count of its doctrines and moral precepts. Yet 

79 In the third Book against Marcion, Tertullian assigns 
the reason why he considers the evidence of miracles, as 
not alone sufficient to establish the truth of Christianity. 
Christ himself, he says, warned his Disciples that many would 
come in his name, shewing signs and wonders. (Matt. xxiv. 24.) 
It was, therefore, necessary to the complete establishment of 
his pretensions, that he should not only work miracles, but 
should in all respects fulfil the predictions of the prophets 
respecting his character and office, c. 3. 



135 

when he explains the notion of the Supreme 
Being, entertained by the Christians, he adverts, 
though concisely, to the grounds on which their 
belief was founded. 80 He shews that the tes- 
timony, borne to the existence of an Almighty 
Creator of the Universe, by his visible works 
without, and by the voice of conscience within 
us, is confirmed by the Jewish Scriptures ; the 
claims of which to be received as a divine 
revelation he rests upon their superior anti- 
quity, not only to the literature, but even 
to the gods of Greece, and upon the actual 
accomplishment of many of the prophecies 
contained in them. When again he proceeds 
to explain those doctrines which are more pe- 
culiarly Christian, he 81 says that Christ Was 
proved to be the Word of God, as well by 
the miserable state to which, agreeably to the 
prophecies of the Old Testament, the Jewish 
nation was reduced in consequence of its rejec- 
tion of him, as by the miracles which he 
wrought during his residence upon earth. I 
know not what further evidence of the di- 
vine origin of Christianity Tertullian could be 
expected to produce, in a work designed to 
explain what it was, not to prove whence it 

80 Apology, cc< 17, 18, 19, 20. 

81 c. 21. 



136 

was derived. But had the latter been his 
professed object, are we competent to decide 
upon the train of reasoning which he ought 
to have pursued in order most readily to ac- 
complish it? Arguments, which appear to us 
the most forcible, might have been thrown 
away upon the persons whom he was address- 
ing ; and we may surely give him credit for 
knowing by what means he was most likely 
to produce conviction in their minds. He 
has frequent recourse to the argument ad 
hominem ; which, however lightly it may 
weigh in the estimation of the dispassionate 
and reflecting reader of the present day, 
was not without its effect in silencing the 
clamours of malice and of ignorance. They 
who think with 82 Daille, that the exquisite 
wisdom and transcendant beauty of the rule 
of life prescribed in the Gospel constitute 
the strongest and surest proof of its divine ori- 
gin, will also think that Tertullian, by simply 
stating the doctrines of Christianity, and ap- 
pealing to the Scriptures in confirmation of 
his statement, adopted the most efficacious 
mode of extending its influence. 

82 La Sagesse exquise et Finestimable beaute de la disci- 
pline merae de Jesus Christ est, je l'avoue, le plus fort et le 
plus sur argument de sa Verite. Quoted by Dr. Hey in hi? 
Lectures, Book I. end of c. 13. 



137 

We have seen that the persecutions in- 
flicted on the Christians, far from retarding, 
contributed, in the opinion of Tertullian, to 
accelerate the progress of the Gospel. The 
Church was not insensible to the advantages 
which its cause derived from the intrepid con- 
stancy of its members; but it was too well 
aware of the infirmity of human nature not 
to know, that even the sincerest conviction of 
the truth of Christianity might not always be 
sufficient to support the convert in the hour 
of danger. In order, therefore, to excite his 
courage, the sufferings of martyrdom were in- 
vested with peculiar privileges and honours. It 
can scarcely be necessary to remark, that the 
original signification of the word Martyr is " a 
Witness ; " and though in later times the appel- 
lation has been generally confined to those who 
proved the sincerity of their faith by the sacri- 
fice of their lives, in the time of Tertullian 83 it 
was used with greater latitude, and comprehend- 
ed all whom the profession of Christianity had 
exposed to any severe hardship, such as impri- 
sonment, or loss of property — those who are 
now usually distinguished by the name of 84 Con- 

83 Thus in the Tract de Prsescriptione Haereticorum, c. S. 
Si etiam Martyr lapsus de regula fuerit. 

84 Tertullian sometimes applies the term Confessor to one 
who was imprisoned on account of his religion. Et quum 



138 

fessors. To this lax use of the term martyr 
must be chiefly ascribed the erroneous persua- 
sion which has been so carefully cherished by 
the Church of Rome, respecting the number of 
martyrs, strictly so called ; for though it may 
have been greater than 85 Dodwell was willing 
to allow, it is certain that his opinion approaches 
much nearer to the truth than that of his op- 
ponents. 

We shall, however, form a very inadequate 
idea of the sufferings endured by the primi- 
tive Christians, if we restrict them to the 
punishments inflicted by the magistrates, or 
to the outrages committed by a blind and in- 
furiate populace. Many, who escaped the sword 
and the wild beasts, were destined to encoun- 

in carcere fratrem vult visitari, Confessoris imperat curam. 
Scorpiace, ell. 

85 Tertullian, we believe, mentions only five Martyrs by 
name: St. Peter, who was crucified, and St. Paul, who was 
beheaded at Rome during Nero's persecution ; De Praescrip- 
tione Haereticorum, c. 36. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 5. Scor- 
piace, cap. ult. Perpetua, of whose martyrdom an account is 
still extant under the title of Passio Perpetua? ac Felicitatis ; 
De Anima, c. 55. Rutilius, who, having for some time avoided 
persecution by flight, and even, as he conceived, secured 
his safety by the payment of a sum of money, was suddenly 
seized, and, after undergoing severe torments, cast into the 
flames; De Fuga in Persecutione, c. 5. and Justin; adv. 
Valentinianos, c. 5. Tertullian relates also that St. John the 
Evangelist was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil, and 
came out unhurt. De Prescript Haeret. c. 36. 



139 

ter trials of the severest kind ; though their 
sufferings attracted not the public attention: 
When we consider the species of authority 
exercised by heads of families in those days, 
and the hatred by which many were actuated 
against Christianity, we may frame to our- 
selves some notion of the condition of a wife, 
a child, or a slave, who ventured to profess 
a belief in its doctrines. 86 This alone was 
deemed a sufficient cause for repudiating a 
wife, or disinheriting a son ; and Tertullian 
mentions 87 by name a governor of Cappado- 
cia, who avenged the conversion of his wife 
by persecuting all the Christians of the pro- 
vince. So heinous indeed was the offence, that it 
88 cancelled all obligations. He who committed 
it became at once an outcast from society, 
and was considered to have forfeited his claim 
to the good offices of his nearest kinsman ; 

86 Uxorem jam pudicam maritus, jam non zelotypus, 
ejecit : filium jam subjectum pater, retro patiens, abdicavit : 
servum jam fidelem dominus, olim mitis, ab oculis relegavit : 
ut quisque hoc nomine emendatur, offendit. Apology, c. 3. 

87 Ad Scapulam, c. 3. 

88 In the first Tract ad Nationes, Tertullian says that 
informations were frequently laid against the Christians by 
their slaves, c. 7* Quid? quum domestici eos vobis pro- 
dant ? omnes a nullis magis prodimur : quanto magis, si 
atrocitas tanta sit quae justitia indignationis omnem famili- 
aritatis fidem rumpit. 



140 

nor were instances wanting, 89 if Tertullian's 
expressions are to be literally understood, in 
which a brother informed against a brother, 
and even a parent against a child. 

Yet amidst the trials and afflictions to which 
he was subjected the convert was not entirely 
destitute even of earthly consolation. The af- 
fection and esteem of the Brethren in some 
degree compensated the loss of his former 
friends, the alienation of his kindred, and the 
contempt and insults of the world. We in 
the present day can form only a faint concep- 
tion of the intimacy of that union which sub- 
sisted between the primitive Christians, and 
was cemented by a community of danger, as 
well as of faith and hope. 90 The love which 

89 I speak doubtfully, because there is something in our 
author's mode of expressing himself which leads me to 
suspect, that no such instances had actually fallen within his 
own knowledge ; but that he inferred that they had occurred, 
because our Lord had declared that they would occur. Quum 
autem subjicit, Tradet autem f rater fratrem, et pater JUium 
in mortem, et insurgent jilii in parentes et mortificabunt eos ; 
manifeste iniquitatem istam in caeteros pronuntiavit, quam in 
Apostolis non invenimus. Nemo enim eorum aut fratrem 
aut patrem passus est traditorem, quod plerique jam nostri. 
Dehinc ad Apostolos revocat : Et eritis odio omnibus prop- 
ter nomen meum : Quanto magis nos, quos a parentibus 
quoque tradi oportet ! Scorpiace, c. 9. Sed et fratres nostros 
et patres et filios et socrus et nurus et domesticos nostros 
ibidem exhibere debebis, per quos traditio disposita est, c. 10. 

90 Vide, inquiunt, ut invicem se diligunt Apology, c. 39- 



141 

they bore to each other excited the astonish- 
ment, though it could not subdue the hosti- 
lity of their heathen persecutors. But they 
naturally regarded, with feelings of peculiar 
affection and respect, those members of the 
Church who were called to suffer in its 
cause. The Christian, when imprisoned on 
account of his religion, was supported by the 
reflection, that his brethren anxiously watched 
over his fate, and that no exertion would be 
wanting on their part to mitigate its severity — 
91 that he should be maintained during his con- 
finement by their voluntary contributions — 
that 92 devout females would flock to his 
prison to kiss his chains, and 93 penitents to 
obtain through his intercession a speedier re- 
storation to the communion of the Church. 
If he escaped with life, he knew that he 
should become the object of the most reverential 
regard — that he should be held up by the 
Church as an example to all its members, and 

91 Apology, c. 3g. Ad Martyres, cc. 1.2. De Jejuniis, c. 12. 

92 Quis in carcerem ad osculanda vincula Martyris reptare 
patietur ? Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4. 

93 Quam pacera quidam in Ecclesia non habentes a Marty- 
ribus in carcere exorare consueverunt. Ad Martyres, L. i. 
After Tertullian had seceded from the Church, he denied that 
it possessed the power of pardoning crimes of a heinous 
nature : and ridiculed the notion that attention ought to be 
paid to the intercession of a martyr. De Pudicitia, c. 22. 



142 

possess 94 a prior claim to its dignities and 
honours. If he was destined to lose his life, 
he had been taught that martyrdom was a 
95 second and more efficacious baptism — 96 that 
it washed away every stain — and that, while 
the souls of ordinary Christians passed the in- 
terval between their separation from the body 
and the general resurrection in a state of in- 
complete enjoyment, that of the martyr was 
97 secure of immediate admission to the perfect 
happiness of Heaven. 

When such were the privileges conferred, 
both in this and in the next world, by suffer- 
ing for the faith of Christ, it is not surprising 
that men of an ardent and enthusiastic temper 
should aspire to the crown of martyrdom, and 
eagerly encounter persecution. Nor can it be 
dissembled that 98 some of the early fathers, in 

94 Sed alium ex martyrii prcerogativa loci potitum indigna- 
tus. Adv. Valentinianos, c. 4. See de Fuga in Persecutione, 
e. 11. 

95 De Patientia, c. IS. Scorpiace, c. 6. sub fine. De Pudi- 
citia, c. 9« sub fine, c. 22. De Baptismo, c 16. 

96 Apology, sub fine. Omnia enim huic operi delicta 
donantur. 

97 Nemo enim, peregrinatus a corpore, statim immoratur 
penes Dominum, nisi ex martyrii prcerogativa, Paradiso scilicet, 
non inferis, deversurus. De Resur. Carnis, c. 43. Scorpiace, 
c. 12. Ad ipsum divinae sedis ascensum. De Patientia, c. 13. 

98 Denique cum omni saevitia. vestra concertamus, etiam 
ultro erumpentes, magisque damnati quam absoluti gaudemus. 

Ad 



143 

their anxiety to confirm the faith of the con- 
vert, and to prevent him from apostatizing in 
the hour of trial, occasionally spoke a language 
calculated to encourage men to make that gra- 
tuitous sacrifice of life, to which the sober de- 
cision of reason must annex the name and 
the guilt of suicide. It may be asked, per- 
haps, " what surer mark there can be of that 
love of God, in which consists the perfection 
of the Christian character, than an earnest 
desire to be removed from this world of vanity 
and sin, and to be admitted to the immediate 
perception of the Divine Presence? "When 
Tertullian says, that the Christian's only con- 
cern respecting this life is, that he may as 
speedily as possible exchange it for another, 
in what does his language differ from that of 
St. Paul, who tells 10 ° the Philippians that he 
has a desire to depart, and to be with Christ ? " 
But this desire was tempered and controlled in 
the mind of the Apostle by a feeling of implicit 
resignation to the will of God. He must 

Ad Scapulam, c. 1. Absit enim ut indigne feramus ea nos 
pati quae optamus, c. 2. See also c. 5. 

99 In primis, quia nihil nostra refert in hoc aevo^ nisi de 
eo quam celeriter excedere. Apology, c. 41. 

100 c. 1. v. 23. Tertullian refers more than once to this 
very passage. Cupidi et ipsi iniquissimo isto sseculo eximi., et 
recipi ad Dominum, quod etiam Apostolo votum fuit. Ad 
Uxorem, L. i. c. 5. Ipso Apostolo festinante ad Dominum, 
De Exhort. Castitatis, c. 12. See also de Spectaculis, c. 28. 



144 

abide in the flesh so long as his ministry could 
be useful to the Philippians ; and it was not 
for him to determine for how long a period 
his usefulness would continue. Though he 
was prepared — though he longed for the 
summons to depart, he did not venture to 
anticipate it ; and far from courting mar- 
tyrdom, he employed all warrantable methods 
of preserving his life. Tertullian himself, 
101 in the Apology, discriminates accurately 
between the case of a Christian who volun- 
tarily denounces himself, and that of one 
who, when brought before the magistrate, pro- 
fesses his gladness that he is called to suffer 
on account of his faith. He supposes a heathen 
to ask, " Why do you complain of being perse- 
cuted, when it is your own wish to suffer?" His 
answer is, " No doubt, we wish to suffer ; but 
in the same manner that a soldier wishes for 
the battle. He wishes to obtain the spoil and 
glory consequent upon victory ; but would 
gladly avoid the danger to which he will be 
exposed, though he does not shrink from it. 

101 Ergo, inquitis, cur querimini quod vos insequamur, si 
pati vultis, quum diligere debeatis per quos patimini quod 
vultis? Plane volumus pati; verum eo more, quo et bel- 
lum nemo quidem libens patitur, quum et trepidare et 
periclitari sit necesse; tamen et praeliatur omnibus viribus, 
et vincens in praelio gaudet qui de praelio querebatur, quia 
et gloriam consequitur et praedam, c. 50. 



145 

So we, though we endure your persecutions in 
the hope of finally obtaining the reward of our 
fidelity, would gladly avoid them, could we do 
so consistently with our allegiance to Christ." 

While however we condemn that immoderate 
anxiety to obtain the honours of martyrdom, 
which appears to have been too prevalent among 
the primitive Christians, let us not involve, 
in one indiscriminate censure, all who either 
became their own accusers before the magis- 
trates, or refused to save themselves by flight, 
or by any other innocent means, from the cer- 
tain death which awaited them. The moral 
character of the act must depend upon the 
motive by which it was dictated. The name 
of suicide is justly applied to that voluntary 
sacrifice of life, which originates in distrust of 
the goodness, or impatience of the visitations 
of God — in disgust at the world — or in a pre- 
sumptuous desire to seize, before the appointed 
time, the rewards reserved in heaven for the 
faithful followers of Christ. But who can fail 
to discern the clear distinction between these 
cases and the noble refusal of Socrates to save 
his life by escaping from prison? a refusal 
dictated by a feeling of reverence for the laws 
of his country, and a conviction that he was 
bound to obey them even unto death. In like 

K 



146 

manner it may be presumed that, when the 
primitive Christians voluntarily presented them- 
selves before the tribunal of the magistrate, 
they were frequently actuated by a more jus- 
tifiable motive than the desire of securing the 
honours of martyrdom, They might hope to 
arrest the violence of an angry governor, by con- 
vincing him of the inutility of persecuting men 
who, far from dreading or avoiding any punish- 
ments which he could inflict, came forward 
to meet them. They might hope to excite 
a feeling, if not of compassion, at least of 
horror, in his mind; by shewing him that he 
must wade through a sea of blood in order 
to accomplish his purpose. Such is the con- 
struction put by 102 Lardner upon the conduct 
of the Asiatic Christians; who during a per- 
secution presented themselves in a body before 
the tribunal of 103 Arrius Antoninus, the pro- 
consul. He regards as an act of well-timed, 
as well as generous, self-devotion, that which 

102 Heathen Testimonies. Observations on Pliny's Letter. 
Sect. vii. 

103 Learned men are not agreed respecting the indivi- 
dual of whom this story is told. Lardner supposes him to 
have been the maternal grandfather of Antoninus Pius, 
who was proconsul of Asia during the reign of Nerva 
or Trajan. Gibbon supposes him to have been Antoninus 
Pius himself, who was also proconsul of Asia. Casaubon 
fixes upon an Arrius Antoninus, who was murdered during 
the reign of Commodus. iElii Lampridii Commodus, p. 870. 



147 

104 Gibbon produces as an instance of the in- 
discreet ardour of the primitive Christians. 
His view is, in my opinion, confirmed by the 
context; 105 for Tertullian introduces the story 
by observing that the Christians voluntarily 
presented themselves, in order to convince the 
governors that they were not afraid of death ; 
and afterwards calls upon Scapula, the Proconsul 
of Africa, whom he is addressing, to reflect 
how many thousands he would destroy, and 
what utter ruin he would bring upon Car- 
thage, if he persisted in his cruel intentions. 
Whatever might be the motive which dic- 
tated the act, its effect certainly was to 
put an end to the persecution. Antoninus, 
after he had ordered a few to be led away to 
punishment, either influenced by compassion, 
or observing that the resolution of the sur- 
vivors was unshaken, dismissed them with the 
exclamation, " Miserable men ! if you wish to 
die, have you not precipices or halters?" 

We find, as we might expect from the 
change which took place in Tertullian's opi- 
nions, some inconsistency in his language re- 
specting the conduct to be pursued by Christians 
in times of persecution. As he advanced in 

104 Chap. xvi. p. 552. Ed. 4to. 

105 Ad Scapulam, c. 5. 

K 2 



148 

life, his notions became continually more severe. 
We have 106 already observed that, in the Tract 
de Patientia, he speaks as if it were allowable 
for a Christian to consult his safety by flight. 
But in the Tract de Fuga in Persecutione — 
which was written after his secession from the 
Church, and is described, perhaps too harshly, 
by Gibbon, as a compound of the wildest fana- 
ticism and most incoherent declamation — he 
denounces flight in time of persecution as an 
impious attempt to resist the divine will. 
107 u Persecutions," he argues, " proceed from God, 
for the purpose of proving the faith of Christ- 
ians : 108 the attempt, therefore, to avoid them 
is both foolish and wicked ; foolish, because 
we cannot escape the destiny assigned us by 
God; wicked, because by fleeing from perse- 
cution, we appear to set ourselves in opposi- 
tion to his will, and to accuse him of cruelty. 
109 Our Saviour, it is true, said to his disciples, 
' When they persecute you in one city, flee 
to another.' But this injunction applied only 
to their particular circumstances: had they 
been cut off in the very outset of their mi- 

106 See the passage quoted in chap. i. note 79- Compare 
ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 3. Etiam in persecutionibus melius est ex 
permissu fugere de oppido in oppidum, quam comprehensum 
et distortum negare. Atqui isti beatiores, qui valent beati tes- 
timonii confessione non excidere. 

l °7 c. 1—5. m c. 4. m c. 6. Matt, x 23. 



149 

nistry, the Gospel could not have been diffused 
throughout the world. 110 The same reason will' 
account for the conduct of Christ, in with- 
drawing himself from the fury of the Jews. 
His bitter agony in the garden, which is urged 
in defence of flight in time of persecution, 
was designed to refute by anticipation the here- 
tical notion that he had neither a human body 
nor soul : and his prayer to God—' Let this 
cup pass from me' — will not justify us in en- 
deavouring to flee from danger, since he im- 
mediately subjoined, ' Not my will, but thine 
be done'." 

Allusion 111 has already been made to a pas- 
sage in the Tract which we are now consider- 
ing; where Tertullian speaks of the immense 
revenue which might be collected, if each 
Christian was allowed to purchase the free 
exercise of his religion for a sum of money. 112 
This measure indeed had not been resorted 
to as a source of revenue to the state ; but 
it had suggested itself to the avarice of the 
provincial governors as an excellent expedi- 
ent for replenishing their private coffers; and 
we find that not only individuals, but whole 
Churches were in the habit of purchasing ex- 
emption from persecution. 113 Tertullian, as 

110 c. 8. m note 4. of this chapter. 

112 c. 13. • 113 c. 11. ad fin. 



150 

might be expected, condemns this practice in 
the strongest terms. " Christians," he says, " who 
have been redeemed with the precious blood 
of Christ, may not redeem their lives with 
money. If such a practice was to become uni- 
versal, no instance of martyrdom could occur. 
God would no longer be glorified by the suf- 
ferings of his faithful servants, and thus one 
end of the Christian dispensation would be 
defeated." 

Two of Tertullian's Treatises relate expressly 
to the subject of martyrdom. One of them, 
entitled ad Martyres, is a brief address to cer- 
tain Christains who had been cast into prison 
on account of their religion ; pointing out to 
them various topics of consolation, and ex- 
horting them to courage and constancy under 
their sufferings. It might be supposed, that 
the duty of preparation for the cruel fate which 
awaited them would have left them neither 
time nor inclination to engage in disputes with 
each other. 114 They appear, however, to have 
disagreed in prison ; and part of Tertullian's 
Address is taken up in warning them not to 
allow the enemy of their salvation to gain a 
triumph by their dissensions. Their disputes 
appear from our author's expressions to have 
been of a personal character. Our Reformers 

114 c. 1. 



151 

in Queen Mary's days, when confined in prison, 
and expecting to be brought to the stake, wrote 
and dispersed Tracts against each other on the 
doctrine of Predestination. 

With respect to the other Tract, entitled 
Scorpiace, we have already observed that it was 
directed against the Gnostics and Valentinians, 
w r ho denied that a Christian was under any 
obligation to encounter martyrdom. 115 " God," 
they said, " cannot desire the death of the inno- 
cent; nor can Christ who died for man, wish 
man to die in turn for him." The aim, there- 
fore, of our author, is to shew, that it is the 
bounden duty of Christians to endure the se- 
verest sufferings, rather than do any act which 
can be construed into a participation in idolatry. 
116 The heinousness of that sin in the sight of 
God is proved by the numerous denunciations 
in the Old Testament against it; and by the 
severe punishments inflicted on the Israelites, 
for adopting the rites of their idolatrous neigh- 
bours. 117 But when God forbids us to commit 
idolatry, he evidently forbids us to shrink from 
any danger to which we may be exposed by our 



115 c. 1. See chap. I. p. 58. 116 cc. 2, 3. 

117 c. 4. This notion is carried to the utmost pitch of 
extravagance, in the Tract de Idololatria, c. 22. 



152 

refusal to commit it ; to shrink for instance 
from martyrdom, if we should be called to so 
severe a trial of our faith. 118 This conclusion 
our author supports by references to the ex- 
ample of Daniel, and the three Jews who were 
thrown into the fiery furnace by Nebuchad- 
nezzar, for refusing to bow down to the golden 
image. 119 He appears, however, to have been 
aware that these references would have little 
weight with the Gnostics and Marcionites, who 
denied that the God of the Old Testament was 
the supreme God. r -°He contends, therefore, 
that, when God calls men to suffer for the 
Gospel, far from deserving, as the Valentinians 
insinuated, on that account to be censured as 
cruel, he affords a striking proof of his good- 
ness, by enabling us to vanquish in turn the 
enemy of our salvation by whom Adam was 
vanquished. 

From the Old Testament Tertullian pro- 
ceeds to the New; and m argues, that one prin- 
cipal object of our Saviour's discourses to his 
disciples was to confirm their faith, and prepare 
them cheerfully to encounter the persecutions 
which awaited them. The interpretation which 
the apostles put upon the words of Christ is, 

118 c. 8. 119 c. 5. 

120 c. 6. m c. 9—12. 



153 

he adds, manifest both from their writings and 
their conduct. 122 The former are full of allu- 
sions to the dangers and difficulties to which 
the professors of the Gospel would be exposed, 
and of exhortations to support them with con- 
stancy; 123 and with respect to the latter, the 
violent deaths of many of the first Disciples 
sufficiently proved that they did not think 
themselves at liberty to shrink from martyr- 
dom. 

Some of the evasions, suggested by the 
Valentinians for the purpose of enabling the 
convert at once to save his life and satisfy 
his conscience, afford amusing instances of the 
deception which men continually practise on 
themselves. 124 " Our Saviour's words," they 
argued, "are, He who denies me before men, 
him will I deny before my Father. Christ does 
not say, He who denies that he is a Christian ; 
this, therefore, may be denied without in- 
curring the penalty of exclusion from heaven." 
The heathen magistrates appear to have been 
aware of this equivocation : for after the party 
accused had denied that he was a Christian, 
they compelled him also to deny and bias- 

122 cc. 12, 13, 14. m c. 15. 

124 c. 9- Matt. x. 33. 



154 

pheme Christ. 125 The Valentinians also con- 
tended that, as St. Paul enjoins Christians to be 
subject to the higher powers, without limiting 
the injunction, he meant that they were to obey 
the magistrate, even when commanded to abjure 
Christianity. 126 Another of their fancies was, 
that, when Christ directed his followers to con- 
fess Him before men, he alluded to a confession 
to be made, not before the race of men existing 
upon earth — the vile work of the Demiurge — 
but before those to whom the name of men 
really belongs, the Valentinian Powers and 
iEons. It must, however, be admitted that 
Tertullian occasionally displays no less dexterity 
than his opponents, in misinterpreting Scripture 
and wresting it to his own purpose. 127 Thus 
he says, that the fear, which according to St. 
John, is cast out by perfect love, is the fear 
of persecution. 

Though we attempt not to justify the lan- 
guage used by many of the Fathers on the 
subject of martyrdom, we cannot forbear ob- 
serving that a reference to the circumstances 
of the times will probably induce us to mode- 



125 c. 14. Rom. xiii. 1. 126 c. 10. 

127 c. 12. 1 John iv. 18. The same interpretation is 
repeated in the Tract de Fuga in Persecutione, c. 9- 



155 

rate our censure of them for using it. They 
lived when the profession of Christianity was 
attended with the greatest danger — when the 
Christian was liable at any moment to be 
dragged by the malice or avarice of his neigh- 
bours before the tribunal of the magistrates ; 
and to be offered the dreadful alternative of 
renouncing his faith, or dying a cruel and 
ignominious death. They knew how greatly 
the cause of the Gospel was either promoted 
or injured by the behaviour of its professors 
under this severe trial. They resorted, there- 
fore, to every argument which was in their 
opinion calculated to prepare the mind of the 
convert for the arduous conflict ; and to enable 
him to subdue the natural apprehension of 
pain and death. But unhappily, instead of ad- 
hering closely to the example 128 of the Apo- 
stles, and instructing their brethren to encoun- 
ter persecution, not merely with firmness, as 
the lot to which they were especially called 
by their profession, but with cheerfulness and 
joy, since they thereby became partakers in 
their Blessed Master's sufferings — instead of 
confining themselves to these sound and rea- 
sonable topics of exhortation, they represented 
martyrdom as an object to be ambitiously 
sought ; forgetting that, although resignation to 

128 1 Pet. iv. 12. 



156 

the will of God, and a patient enduring of 
the afflictions with which he is pleased to visit 
us, are the surest signs of a genuine piety, to 
go as it were in quest of suffering, and to 
court persecution, is in reality to tempt Him ; 
and bespeaks an impatient and presumptuous 
temper, most foreign from the Christian cha- 
racter. 

We 129 have seen that Tertullian complains 
of the total disregard of the established forms 
of law manifested by the heathen magistrates 
in their proceedings against the Christians. 
They appear also, in the punishments which 
they inflicted, to have been more intent upon 
gratifying their own ferocity, or that of an 
exasperated populace, than upon complying 
with the edicts of the Emperor. 150 From a 
passage in the Address to Scapula, we may con- 
clude that death by the sword was the punish- 
ment appointed in the case of the Christians : 
but Tertullian says that in many instances 

129 p. 120. 

130 p ro tanta innocentia, pro tanta probitate,, pro justitia, 
pro pudicitia, pro fide, pro veritate, pro Deo vivo (f. vivi) 
cremamur, quod nee sacrilegi, nee hostes publici, verum nee 
tot majestatis rei pati solent. Nam et nunc a Praeside 
Legionis et a Praeside Mauritania? vexatur hoc nomen,, sed 
gladio tenus, sicut et a primordio mandatum est animadverti 
in hujusmodl, c. 4. Compare ad Nationes, L. i. c. 18. 
Incendiali tunica. And ad Martyres, c. 5. In tunica ardente. 



157 

they had been burned — " a severity of punish- 
ment," he adds, " to which even criminals con- 
victed of sacrilege or treason are not doomed." 
Nor were the governors content with inflict- 
ing bodily sufferings on their unhappy victims. 
Those more refined and ingenious torments, 
which 131 Gibbon supposes to have existed only 
in the inventions of the monks of succeeding 
ages, were, if we may believe Tertullian, ac- 
tually resorted to in his day. 132 The Primitive 
Christians scrupulously complied with the decree 
pronounced by the Apostles at Jerusalem, in 
abstaining from things strangled and from 
blood ; when, therefore, they were exhausted by 
long fasting, food containing blood was offered 
to them, in the hope that they might be seduced 
into an act of disobedience. 135 Tertullian states 
also that attempts were frequently made to 
overcome the chastity of the female martyrs ; 
and that, instead of being exposed to the wild 
beasts, they were consigned to the keepers of 
the public stews, to become the victims either 
of seduction, or of brutal violence. 

131 Chap. xyi. p. 544. Ed. 4to. 

132 Apology, c. 9« De Monogamia, c. 5. Et libertas 
ciborum et sanguinis solius abstinentia, sicut ab initio fuit. 

133 Nam et proxime ad Lenonem damnando Christianam, 
potius quam ad Leonem, confessi estis labem pudicitiae apud 
nos atrociorem omni poena et omni raorte reputari. Apology, 
sub fine. See also de Pudicitia, c. 1. 



158 

I shall proceed to notice some other facts 
mentioned by Tertullian ; which, though they 
do not relate immediately to the history of 
his own times, are yet worthy of observation. 
15i In the Tract against the Jews, he says that 
Christ suffered in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, 
in the Consulship of Rubellius Geminus and 
Fusius Geminus, in the month of March, at 
the time of the Passover, on the eighth of 
the calends of April, on the first day of un- 
leavened bread. 135 He had previously said that 
Augustus survived the birth of Christ fifteen 
years ; and that Christ suffered in the fifteenth 
year of Tiberius Caesar, being then about thirty 
years of age. It is allowed that the consul- 
ship of the Gemini corresponded to the fifteenth 
year of the reign of Tiberius ; and as we know 
from St. Luke's Gospel that our Saviour began 
to preach in that year, those writers who con- 
tend that his ministry lasted only for a single 
year, refer to Tertullian as maintaining that 
opinion. To these passages, however, has been 

134 c. 8. sub fine. Compare c. 10. sub fine. 

135 Post enim Augustum, qui supervixit post nativitatem 
Christi, anni 15 efficiuntur : cui successit Tiberius Caesar, et 
imperium habuit annis 22, mensibus 7, diebus 20. Hujus 
quintodecimo anno imperii passus est Christus., annos habens 
quasi 30 quum pateretur, c. 8. Tertullian affirms also, that 
Christ was born in the forty-first year of the reign of 
Augustus, of which he dates the commencement from the 
death of Cleopatra. 



159 

opposed another, 156 from the first Book against 
Marcion ; in which it is said that Christ was 
revealed in the twelfth year of Tiberius. The 
correct inference, therefore, appears to be that 
Tertullian believed our Saviour's ministry to 
have continued for three years, but mistook 
the year in which he was revealed for the 
year in which he suffered. As it forms no 
part of my plan to discuss the difficulties 
attending the chronology of our Saviour's life, 
I shall content myself with referring the reader 
to 137 Mr. Benson's work on that subject. 

Tertullian 138 more than once speaks of a 

136 c. 15. At nunc quale est ut Dominus a 12 Tiberii 
Caesaris revelatus sit? In a subsequent chapter Tertullian 
speaks as if the ministry of Christ had commenced in the 
fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar ; but he then appears to be 
stating the opinion of Marcion. Anno 15 Tiberii, Christus 
Iesus de coelo manare dignatus est, Spiritus Salutaris, c. 19* 
So in L. iv. c. 7- Anno quintodecimo principals Tiberiani, 
proponit (Marcion) eum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae 
Capharnaum, utique de coelo creatoris, in quod de suo ante 
descenderat. 

137 c. vii. Sect. i. p. 274. 

138 Cujus nemo adhuc certus de tribu, de populo, de 
domo ? de censu denique Augusti, quern testem fidelissimum 
Dominicae nativitatis Romana Archiva custodiunt? ad Mar- 
cionem, L. iv. c. 7- We must bear in mind that Tertullian 
is arguing with an heretic, who affirmed that Christ was 
not born at all, but descended upon earth a perfect man. 
Again, c. 19- Sed et census constat actos sub Augusto nunc 
(f. tunc) in Judaea per Sentium Saturninum. And c. 36. 
Vel de recentibus Augustianis censibus adhuc tunc fortasse 

pendentibus. 



160 

census taken during the reign of Augustus ; the 
documents relating to which were preserved 
in the Roman archives, and, according to him, 
afforded incontestable evidence of our Lord's nati- 
vity. He states, however, that this census was 
taken by Sentius Saturninus ; and consequently 
appears to contradict the account given by St. 
Luke, who ascribes it to Cyrenius. In this, 
as in the former case, I shall not attempt to 
examine the solutions of the difficulty, which 
have been proposed by different learned men; 
but shall refer the reader to 139 Lardner. One 
circumstance, however, seems worthy of obser- 
vation. 140 Tertullian uniformly appeals to the 
census as establishing the descent of Christ 
from David through Mary ; whose genealogy 
he also supposes to be given 141 in St. Matthew's 

pendentibus. See also de Carne Christi, c. 2. Molestos semper 
Caesaris census. In the Treatise de Pallio, c. 1. Sentius 
Saturninus is mentioned as having presided at the ceremonies 
which attended the admission of Carthage among the Colonies 
of Rome. 

139 Credibility of the Gospel History. Objections against 
Luke ii. 1, 2. considered. 

140 Ex stirpe autem Jesse deputatum, per Mariam scilicet 
inde censendum. Fuit enim de patria Bethlehem, et de domo 
David, sicut apud Romanos in censu descripta est Maria, 
ex qua nascitur Christus. Adv. Judaeos, c. 9- Compare adv. 
Marc. L. iii. cc. 17- 20. L. iv. c. 1. c. 36. Qui vult videre 
Iesum, David filium credat per virginis censum. See also 
L. v. c. 1. and c 8. where there is a very fanciful appli- 
cation of Isaiah xi. 1. Compare de Carne Christi, c. 21. 

141 De Carne Christi, c. 22. 



161 

Gospel. 142 In the Apology, Tertullian states 
that the miraculous darkness at our Lord's cru- 
cifixion was denied by those who did not 
know that it had been predicted, and there- 
fore could not account for it ; " yet," he adds, 
" it is mentioned in your, i. e. the Roman ar- 
chives." U3 Gibbon thinks, that, instead of 
archivis vestris, we should adopt the reading 
of the Codex Fuldensis, arcanis vestris ; and 
understand the reference to be to the Sibylline 
Verses, which relate the prodigy exactly in the 
words of the Gospel. It is certain that 144 Ter- 
tullian speaks of the Sibyl as a true prophetess ; 
but we 145 have just seen that he occasionally 
appeals to documents in the Roman archives 
in confirmation of his statements, and I observe 
that Semler retains the reading archivis. 

I will conclude my remarks on the exter- 
nal History of the Church, as illustrated by 
the writings of Tertullian, with briefly advert- 

142 Eodem momento dies, medium orbem sigriante sole, 
subducta est. Deliquium utique putaverunt, qui id quoque 
super Christo praedictum non scierunt; ratione non depre- 
hensa, negaverunt. Et tamen eum mundi casum relatum 
in archivis vestris. c. 21. 

143 Chap. xv. note 194. 

144 Ad Nationes, L. ii. c. 12. sub fine. The verses there 
quoted may be found in the Apology of Athenagoras. c. 26. 
De Pallio, c. 2. See Salmasius in loco. 

145 See note 138 of this Chapter. 

L 



162 

ing to the few notices which can be collected 
from them, respecting the condition of the Jews 
in his time. 146 He describes them as dispersed 
throughout the world ; having neither God nor 
a fellow-mortal for their king ; not allowed to 
set foot upon their native land ; reduced, in 
a word, to a state of the lowest degradation. 



APPENDIX to CHAPTER II. 

By the kindness of the Rev. Samuel Hey, 
Rector of Steeple Ashton, and of Dr. Richard 
Hey, of Hertingford-Bury, I have been put 
in possession of twelve Lectures on Ecclesiastical 
History, read by their brother — the Rev. Dr. 
John Hey, late Norrisian Professor of Divi- 
nity in the University of Cambridge — in the 

146 Dispersi, palabundi, et cceli et soli sui extorres vagantur 
per orbem, sine homine, sine Deo rege, quibiis nee adve- 
narum jure terram patriam saltern vestigio salutare conceditur. 
Apology, c. 21. Compare adv. Judaeos, c. 3. Unde Israel 
in novissimo tempore dignosci haberet, quando secundum sua 
merita in sanctam civitatem ingredi prohiberetur. See also 
c. 13, and de Pudicitia, c. 8. Ecclesiastical writers some- 
times speak as if Adrian's prohibition applied only to the 
precincts of Jerusalem or iElia ; at others, as if it extended 
to the whole territory of Judaea. See Gibbon, c. xv. note ig. 
and the note of Valesius ad Eusebii Eccl. Hist. L. iv. c. 6. 
Justin Martyr, Apology I. p. 84. B. 



163 

Chapel of Sidney College, in the years 1768 
and 1769. Two of them relate to the miracles 
of, the Primitive Church; and I willingly 
take this opportunity of confirming my own 
opinion on this interesting subject, by that 
of one of the most acute, most impartial, and 
most judicious Divines of modern times. The 
reader, in perusing the following extracts, 
should bear in mind, that at the time when 
Dr. Hey wrote, the controversy excited by 
Dr. Middleton's Essay was still fresh in the 
recollections of men. 

After some preliminary remarks, Dr. Hey 
observes : " the authors on both sides of this 
question, concerning the reality of the mira- 
culous powers in the Primitive Church, seem 
to have looked too far before them; and to 
have argued the point with too much regard 
to the consequences which were likely to follow 
from its being determined in this manner or 
in that. Those who defend the pretensions of 
the Fathers, do it through fear, least, if they 
should appear indefensible, the cause of Chris- 
tianity should suffer by the condemnation of 
its early propagators. Those who accuse the 
Fathers of superstition, weakness, or falsehood, 
consider what indelible disgrace they shall bring 
upon Popery by shewing the impurity of the 

L 2 



164 

sources from which all its distinguishing doc- 
trines have taken their rise. But why, in 
searching after the truth, should we give the 
least attention to any consequences whatsoever f 
We know with certainty beforehand, that error 
of every kind, if it is not an evil in itself, 
is always productive of evil in some degree 
or other; and that to distinguish truth from 
falsehood, is the likeliest method we can take 
to make our conduct acceptable to God and 
beneficial to man. Nothing can be more 
groundless than the fears which some men 
indulge, least the credit of Christianity should 
suffer along with the reputation of several of 
its professors; or more weak than considering 
that a sufficient reason for defending the vera- 
city of the Fathers at all events. There are 
some miracles recorded in Ecclesiastical His- 
tory, which are too childish and ridiculous for 
any one to believe; and there are some indis- 
putable records of the vices of the Christians, 
and more particularly of the Clergy: so that, 
if Christianity can suffer by such objections 
(for which there is no kind of foundation in 
reason) it has already suffered, even in the 
estimation of those who think the objections 
of weight. All agree (at least all Protestants) 
that there have been pious frauds and forged 
miracles, as well as that the sacred order have 



165 

been in some ages extremely vicious. The only 
difference then is in the degree of this charge, 
or rather about the century with regard to 
which it ought to take place; but what dif- 
ference can such a circumstance as that make 
in respect of the divine origin of Christianity? 
We may, therefore, without fear or scruple, 
enter upon the discussion which I have been 
proposing, and probe every apparent wound 
with resolution and accuracy. 

But as all reasoning on subjects of this nature 
must have its foundation in facts (for we can 
no more argue upon points of history with- 
out ascertaining facts, than upon points of phi- 
losophy without experiments) the first part of 
our business is to collect from Ecclesiastical 
writers narratives of those miracles wrought, 
or pretended to be wrought, in the Christian 
Church, which seem to be most worthy of 
our attention, and most likely to afford our 
judgement ground for a determination. 

Previous, however,* to such enumeration, it 
will be proper to mention a circumstance of 
importance, viz. that for fifty years after the 
ascension of Christ, none of the Fathers made 
any pretensions to the possession of miraculous 
powers. We have already spoken in a former 



166. 

Lecture, of those Fathers who are called the 
Apostolic, of Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, 
hernias; now it is an historical truth not to 
be omitted, that not one of those pious men, 
though they were the principal governors of 
the Church, and the immediate successors of 
the Apostles in that government (as well as 
their companions and friends) ever speaks of 
himself as capable of counteracting the ordinary 
powers of nature : they all endeavour to incul- 
cate the morality and religion of the Gospel, 
but that merely as men, possessed indeed of 
the sense and meaning of the sacred writers, 
but entirely void of their extraordinary power. 
This fact, though not wholly uncontroverted, is 
very nearly so ; some ambiguous expressions con- 
cerning the graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit 
have been, not without great violence, extended 
to signify an extraordinary communication with 
the Deity — but no one has so much as pre- 
tended that such communication was ever meant 
to answer any further end, than that of 
strengthening the weakness of human nature 
against the terrors of persecution. I only affirm, 
however, that none of the Apostolic Fathers 
speaks of himself as endued with a power of 
working miracles ; we must not absolutely say 

1 Hennas had visions. Nolc of Dr. Hey. 



167 

that no miracles have ever been said to be 
wrought about the time they lived; because 
there is a very celebrated letter extant from 
the Church of Smyrna, giving an account of 
the martyrdom of Polycarp, which is said to 
have been attended with circumstances suffi- 
ciently miraculous. This account I shall beg 
leave to repeat from an eminent writer." 

Having given an extract from this letter, 
as well as from the account of the martyrdom 
of Ignatius, Dr. Hey proceeds : " These mira- 
cles are mentioned because they are said to 
have been performed concerning those two 
Apostolic Fathers, who never ventured to as- 
sume the power of performing any themselves. 5 * 
After briefly noticing the miracle of the 
thundering legion, of which he observes that 
" there seems sufficient reason for being cautious 
about ranking it amongst the genuine miracles 
performed in favour of the Christian religion," 
he adds the following remarks : " Though the 
Apostolic Fathers stand clear of all imputa- 
tions of vanity or falsehood on the score of 
claiming miraculous powers, yet those whom 
we mentioned next in order, when we consi- 
dered the subject of studying the writings of 
the Fathers, declare openly that such were in 
their time indisputably exercised in the Church. 



168 

I mean Justin Martyr, Irenams, Theophilus 
Bishop of Antioch, and Tertullian. We might 
add Origen, and indeed every other writer after 
them till the Reformation ; and there is no effort 
of the divine power so great which they do not 
boast of having exerted. Of all sorts of mira- 
cles ever performed, one would expect men to 
be the most cautious of assuming the power of 
raising the dead: and yet Irenzeus says that 
this was frequently done on necessary occasions : 
and that men so raised had lived amongst them 
many years. Ireneeus only affirms this in ge- 
neral, without mentioning any particular in- 
stance, and it is somewhat strange that no 
instance was ever produced in the three first 
centuries, insomuch that the heathens gave no 
credit to the affirmations of the Fathers upon 
this head. 2 "Tantum enim," says Irenaeus, " ab- 
sunt ab eo ut mortuum ipsi excitent, ut ne qui- 
dem credant hoc in totum posse fieri." There is 
not, however, the same want of instances with 

2 The whole passage is as follows : Tantum autem absunt 
ab eo ut mortuum excitent, quemadmodum Dominus excitavit, 
et Apostoli per orationem, et in fraternitate saepissime propter 
aliquid necessariuim ea quae est in quoque loco Ecclesia uni- 
versa postulante per jejunium et supplicationem multam, 
reversus est Spiritus mortui et donatus est homo orationibus 
jsanctorum, ut ne quidem credant hoc in totum posse fieri. 
L. ii. c. 56. Again, c. 57- Jam etiam, quemadmodum diximus, 
et mortui resurrexerunt, et perseveraverunt nobiscum annis 
multis. Instead of the Heathens, Dr. Hey should have said 
the Heretics, for of them Irenaeus is speaking. 



169 

regard to the other branches of miracles said 
to have been performed in the Church, namely, 
seeing visions, prophesying, healing diseases, 
curing dgemoniacs, and some others." 

Dr. Hey passes in the second of the two 
Lectures to what he terms the later miracles 
of the Church; those which are said to have 
been wrought in the interval between the esta- 
blishment of Christianity by the civil power, 
and the time at which he wrote : and having 
remarked that many of them were proved to 
be impostures, he supposes with respect to 
others, the question to be asked — " whether 
those should not be credited which have been 
strongly attested, and their falsity never 
proved?" 

"In answer to this," he proceeds, "we may 
observe, in the first place, that to any one 
who has been conversant in history, and has 
seen the credulity of some, and the pious frauds 
of others, the want of regard to conscience in 
promoting the views of a party, whether civil 
or religious, with the many actual violations 
of truth which have been fully exposed, it is 
absolutely impossible to believe the common 
run of miraculous stories ; no evidence can 
equal the prior probability which we have of 



17Q 

their falsehood. Then there are many relations 
of preternatural events which no one believes, 
(or perhaps a very trifling party), though they 
have been attested with all possible formality 
and exactness. The Abbe Paris is mentioned 
by every one on this subject : he only died in 
1735 ; the variety of miracles which were said 
to have been performed at his tomb is truly 
surprising in an improved age: but not less 
so the strength, the precision, the regularity of 
the attestations of them, taken before magis- 
trates of the greatest gravity and authority. 
Mons. de Montgeron, a person of eminent rank 
in Paris, published a select number of them 
in a pompous volume in quarto, which he dedi- 
cated to the King, and presented to him in 
person ; being induced to the publication of 
them, as he declares, by the incontestable evi- 
dence of the facts : by which he himself, from 
a libertine and professed Deist, became a sincere 
convert to the Christian faith. And yet no 
one now believes these facts; the Jesuit party 
never owned their belief of them, for the Abbe 
was a Jansenist, and the miracles were to 
support the interests of the Jansenists : though 
the Jesuits profess to believe the miracles of 
the Fathers which we have been relating, and 
which are not near so well attested as those 
of the Abbe Paris. 



171 

If then some of the ecclesiastical mira^ 
cles are to be disbelieved, and the later* 
which we are to disbelieve, are better at- 
tested than the early, in what century shall 
we draw the line between the credible and 
incredible ? it is a difficult matter, and the 
difficulty cannot but affect the general credit 
of Church miracles, if joined to other col* 
lateral proofs of the fallibility of their evi- 
dence. 

There is another remarkable instance, in 
which the greatest number of witnesses, and 
the firmest temporary opinion concerning the 
truth of the facts, have not been able to per- 
petuate an error ; and that is the affair of witch- 
craft. No miraculous fact in the Church has 
ever been better proved, if so well, as the super- 
natural operations of witches. All the nations 
of Christendom have so far taken their powers 
for granted, as to provide legal remedies against 
them, — nay even capital punishments for their 
supposed crimes. At this time there subsist in 
this University one, if not several foundations 
for annual sermons, to be preached against 
them. It is shocking to think of the number 
of poor wretches who have suffered cruel deaths 
on account of this superstition: and yet there 
does not now seem to remain the least trace 



172 

of it amongst liberal people, or indeed s in any- 
rank whatsoever. If we consider how an in- 
credulous person, during its existence, would 
be blamed for opposing the united sense of all 
Christian nations, — the testimony of numbers 
of impartial people, — the purport of the wisest 
laws ; we shall at least contract a candid indul- 
gence towards those who are unable to believe 
the relations of St. Jerome. In short, as Dr. 
Middleton says, "the incredibility of the thing 
prevailed, and was found at last too strong 
for human testimony." 4 

Far different from those we have been 
speaking of are the miracles of the Gospel; 
rational, benevolent, seasonable, of extensive use, 
disinterested, free from superstition and morose- 
ness, promoting good morals, called out by the 
greatness of the occasion in a series, coincident 
with the purposes of God manifested in prior 
revelations of his will. 5 Nor would even these 



3 We are afraid that Dr. Hey here over-rates the intel- 
ligence of the people of this country. 

4 Dr. Middleton does not seem to fall far short of 
Mr. Hume on Miracles. Note of Dr. Hey. 

5 A miracle to me can only be what I judge is done with, 
and could not be done without, divine power : I am liable 
to be deceived both as to what is done, and what can be done : 
every miracle therefore must be scrutinized by every man; 

and 



173 

have justly gained the assent of mankind, had 
the internal evidence of the Gospel plainly con- 
tradicted the external, — had the precepts which 
it promulgated been evidently unworthy of the 
Deity, and productive of the misery of human 
nature, instead of meriting the angelic eulogium 
which they received when the heavenly choir 
sang, "Glory to God, — peace on earth, -and 
good-will towards men." 

and the nature and tendency of it called in to assist the 
judgement as to the fact, and the powers of man, &c. under 
the laws of nature. Note by Dr, Hey, written in 1783. 



CHAP. III. 

ON THE STATE OF LETTEKS AND PHILOSOPHY. 



JVxosheim commences his internal history 
of the Church in each century with an account 
of the state of letters and philosophy. In the 
second century his observations principally re- 
late to the new system of philosophy ; or to 
speak more accurately, to that mixture of Pla- 
tonism and Christianity which was introduced 
by Ammonius Saccas at Alexandria. On this 
subject the writings of Tertullian afford no in- 
formation. Not that he was unacquainted with 
the tenets of the different sects — his works 
on the contrary shew that he had studied them 
with diligence and success: or that he enter- 
tained that mortal enmity to philosophy and 
letters which Mosheim imputes to the Mon- 
tanists in general — *for he appears even to have 
thought that the philosophers, who opposed 

1 Idem (Socrates) et quum aliquid de Veritate sapiebat, 
Deos negans, &c. Apology, c. 46. Taceo de Philosophise 
quos, superbia severitatis et duritia discipline ab omni 
timore securos, nonnullus etiam afflatus Veritatis adversus 
Deos erigit Ad Nationes, L. i. c. 10. 



175 

the polytheism of their countrymen, were in 
some measure inspired by the spirit of truth: 
— 2 but he clearly saw, and has, in his contro- 
versial writings against the heretics, pointed 
out the pernicious consequences, to the interests 
of Christianity, which had resulted from the 
attempt to explain its doctrines by a reference 
to the tenets of the philosophers. 3 "They 
indeed by a lucky chance might sometimes 
stumble upon the truth, as men groping in 
the dark may accidentally hit upon the right 
path : but the Christian, who enjoys the benefit 
of a revelation from heaven, is inexcusable, if he 
commits himself to such blind and treacherous 
guidance." 

Although, however, the writings of Ter- 
tullian afford us no assistance in filling up the 

2 Quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis ? quid Academise 
et Ecclesiae ? quid Haereticis et Christianis ? Nostra institutio 
de portieu Solomonis est, qui et ipse tradiderat Dominuni 
in simplicitate cordis esse quaerendum. Viderint qui Stoicum], 
et Platonicum, et Dialecticum Christianismum protulerunt. 
Nobis curiositate opus non est post Christum Iesum, nee 
inquisitione post Evangelium. De Praescriptione Haeretic. 
c. 7- He traces the origin of all the heresies by which the 
peace of the Church was disturbed to the heathen philosophy : 
Ipsae denique haereses a Philosophia subornantur. Ibid. Cum 
Philosophis — Patriarchis, ut ita dixerim, Haereticorum. De 
Anima, c. 3. See also c. 18, and the Apology, c. 4<7- 

3 De Anima,, c. 2. Nonnunquam et in tenebris aditus 
quidam et exitus deprehenduntur caeca felicitate. 



176 

outline sketched by Mosheim of the state of 
learning and philosophy in the second century, 
an examination of his own philosophical or 
metaphysical notions will, we trust, supply some 
curious and not uninteresting information. We 
will begin, therefore, with the Treatise de Tes- 
timonio Animse : the object of which is to prove 
that the soul of man bears a natural testimony 
to the truth of the representation, given in 
Scripture, of the Divine nature and attributes. 
4 In a short exordium, Tertullian points out 
the inconsistency and perverseness of the hea- 
then, who usually paid a blind deference to 
the decisions of the Philosophers; but re- 
nounced their authority at the very time when 
they approached most nearly to the truth — 
when their doctrines most closely resembled 
those of Christianity. He then proceeds to 
address the soul; enumerating at the same 
time the opinions entertained by the philo- 
sophers respecting its origin. 5 " Stand forth," 
lie says, " O soul, whether, as the majority of 



4 Compare the Apology, c. 46. 

5 Consiste in medio, Anima, seu divina et aeterna res es, 
secundum plures philosophos, eo magis non mentiens; seu 
minime divina, quoniam quidem mortalis, ut Epicuro soli 
videtur, eo magis mentiri non debens ; seu de ccelo exciperis 
seu de terra conciperis ; seu numeris, seu atomis coucinnaris ; 
seu cum corpore incipis, seu post corpus induceris ; unde unde 
et quoquo modo hominem facis animal rationale, sensus et 

scientist 



177 

philosophers affirm, thou art divine and immor- 
tal, and therefore incapable of falsehood ; or 
whether, according to the solitary opinion of 
Epicurus, thou art not divine, because mortal, 
and therefore under a stricter obligation to 
speak the truth ; whether thou art brought 
down from heaven, or taken up from the 
earth ; whether thou art formed from numbers 
or from atoms; whether thine existence com- 
menced with that of the body, or thou wast 
subsequently introduced into the body : what- 
ever thine origin, and in whatever manner thou 
makest man a rational animal, capable of sense 
and knowledge — stand forth."—" I do not, 
however," he adds, " address myself to the 
soul in an artificial state, such as it becomes 
after it has been tutored in the schools of 
philosophy ; but to the soul in its natural state, 
possessing only that knowledge which it has 
either within itself, or learns immediately from 
its Creator." 

The 6 testimony which, according to Ter- 
tullian, the soul bears to the unity of God, con- 
sists in exclamations like the following, which 

scientiae capaeissimum, c. . 1. In c. 4. are briefly enumerated 
the opinions of the different philosophers respecting the state 
of the soul after death. 
6 c. 2. 

M 



178 

burst forth involuntarily from the mouths even 
of Pagans, in common conversation : " God 
grant that it may be so" — " If God will." " How 
happens it," asks our author, still addressing 
the soul, " that instead of naming any one of 
the numerous Deities who are the objects of 
heathen worship, you use the word Deus ; and 
thus unconsciously bear testimony to the ex- 
istence of one supreme God ?" 7 In like manner 
the soul evinces its knowledge of the attributes 
of God, of his power and goodness, by exclaim- 
ing, " God bless you ; God is Good ; I commend 
you to God; God sees all things; God will 
repay:" as it evinces its knowledge of the 
author of evil, by the execrations which it 
pronounces against daemons. 8 By the fear also 
of death, by its innate desire of fame, and by 
involuntary expressions of feeling respecting 
the dead, it declares its consciousness that it 
shall exist in another state, and its anticipation 
of a future judgement. 

" Such 9 is the testimony which the soul bears 
to the unity and attributes of God, and to the 
reality of a future state of retribution. Such 
the language which it speaks, not in Greece 
only, or at Rome, but in every age and in 
every clime. Common to all nations, this lan- 

7 c. 3. 8 c. 4, 9 cc. 5, 6, 



179 

guage must have been derived from a common 
source ; must have been dictated by nature, 
or rather by the God of nature ; by Him who 
created the soul. But you will say perhaps, 
that these exclamations, which burst as it were 
involuntarily from the lips, are not the result 
of a consciousness in the soul of its Divine 
Author, impressed upon it by himself; but are 
merely habitual- modes of speech used in 
common conversation, almost without meaning, 
and transmitted either by written or oral tra- 
dition. Be it so. Whence then were they 
derived by the man who first used them ? 
The notion must have been conceived in the 
soul, before it was delivered to the tongue, or 
committed to writing. To account for the 
general use of these expressions by saying 
that they have been handed down by writ- 
ten tradition, is in fact to trace them to God 
himself : for the earliest writings in the world 
are the Jewish Scriptures, of which the authors 
were divinely inspired. It matters little whe- 
ther we say that this consciousness was im- 
pressed immediately by God upon the soul ; 
or that the soul acquired it through the me- 
dium of his revealed Word." 

The confirmation which the natural tes- 
timony of the soul affords to the truth of 

M2 



180 

Christianity was evidently 10 a favourite topic 
with Tertullian. He urges the same argument 
in the n Apology: and Milner in his History 
of the Church, though little disposed to think 
highly of our author, admits that he " scarce 

10 Compare De Annua, e. 41. De Carne Christr, c. 12. 
De Resurrectione Carnis, c. S. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 10. 

11 c. 17- I insert the whole chapter as highly deserving 
the reader's attention. Quod colimus Deus unus est, qui 
totam molem istam cum omni instrumento elementorum, cor- 
pofum, spirituum, verbo quo jussit, ratione qua disposuit, 
virtute qua potoit, de nihilo expressit in ornamentum ma- 
jestatis sua?, unde et Graeci nomen mundo Koa-fxov accom- 
modaverunt. Invisibilis est, etsi videatur; incomprehensi- 
bilis, etsi per gratiam repraesentetur ; inasstimabilis, etsi 
humanis sensibus aestimetur ; ideo verus et tantus est. 
Caeterum quod videri communiter, quod comprehendi, quod 
aestimari potest, minus est et oculis quibus occupatur, et 
manibus quibus contaminatur, et sensibus. quibus invenitur. 
Quod vero immensum est, soli sibi notum est ; hoc est quod 
Deum aestimari facit, dum aestimari non capit. Ita eum vis 
magnitudinis et notum hominibus objicit et ignotum. Et haec 
est summa delicti nolentium recognoscere quern ignorare non 
possunt. Vultis ex operibus ipsius tot ac talibus quibus 
continemur, quibus sustinemur, quibus oblectamur, etiam 
quibus exterremur — vultis ex animae ipsius testimonio com- 
probemus ? quae licet carcere corporis pressa, licet institu- 
tionibus pravis circumscripta, licet libidinibus et concupis- 
ceritiis evigdrata, licet falsis Diis exancillata, quum tamen 
resipiscit, ut ex crapula, ut ex somno, ut ex aliqua valetudine, 
et sanitatem suam potitur, Deum nominat, hoc solo nomine, 
quia proprio Dei veri. Deus magnus, Deus bonus, et quod 
Deus dederit, omnium vox est. Judicem quoque contestatur 
ilium. Deus videt, et Deo commendo, et Deus miki reddet. 
O testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae ! Denique pro- 
nuntians haec, non ad Capitolium, sed ad coelum respicit. 
Novit enim sedem Dei vivi ; ab illo et inde descendit 



181 

remembers a finer observation made by any 
author in favour both of the natural voice of 
conscience, and of the patriarchal tradition of 
true religion ; for both may fairly be supposed 
concerned." 

In the short preface to the Tract of which 
we have been speaking, Tertullian assigns the 
cause of his frequent recurrence to this mode 
of reasoning. To press the enemies of the 
Gospel with arguments drawn from profane 
literature was, he says, useless; though they 
allowed the premises, they were always ready 
with some pretext for evading the legitimate 
conclusion. To bring forward arguments 
founded on Scripture was still more unavail- 
ing; they did not admit its authority. How 
then were they to be convinced, or at least 
silenced ? 12 By an appeal to the testimony 

12 The following are selected from numerous passages in 
which Tertullian appeals to this testimony. Tractandum et 
hie de revelationis qualitate, an digne cognitus sit (Deus), 
ut constet an vere ; et ita credatur esse, quem digne constiterit 
revelatum. Digna enim Deo probabunt Deum. Nos defi- 
nimus Deum primo natura cognoscendum, dehinc doctrina 
recognoscendum. Natura, ex operibus ; doctrina, ex praedica- 
tionibus. Adv. Marc. L. i. c. 18. Compare L. ii. c. 3. Adv. 
Valentinianos, c. %Q. Denique ante legem Moysi scriptam. 
in lapideis tabulis, legem fuisse contendo non scriptam, quae 
naturaliter intelligebatur et a Patribus custodiebatur. Nam 
unde Noe Justus inventus, si non ilium naturalis legis justitia 
praecedebat? Adv. Judaeos, c. 2. De Virginibus vel. cc 1. 16. 

Nos 



182 

borne to the existence of one supreme God, 
by the natural voice of Conscience and by 
the works of Creation. To this testimony, 
therefore, Tertullian appeals: and in thus ap- 
pealing, far from thinking that he could be 
accused of pursuing a course derogatory to the 
honour, or injurious to the interests of the 
Gospel, he conceived that he was offering the 
strongest evidence in confirmation of its truth ; 
by shewing that the revelation, which God has 
been pleased to make of himself, in his visible 
works and in the soul of man, is in perfect 
harmony with that contained in his written 
word. 

But though approved, as we have seen, by 
Milner, Tertullian's reasoning will be far, we 
suspect, from commanding universal assent in 
the present day. Since the publication of Dr. 
Ellis's work, entitled " The Knowledge of 
Divine things from Revelation," it has become 

Nos unum Deum colimus, quern omnes naturaliter nostis; 
ad cujus fulgura et tonitrua contremiscitis : ad cujus beneficia 
gaudetis. Ad Scapulam, c. 2. Si enim anima, aut divina aut a 
Deo data est, sine dubio datorem suum novit. De Testim. 
Animae, c. 2. Quum etiam ignorantes Dominum nulla excep- 
tio tueatur a poena, quia Deum in aperto constitutum, et vel 
ex ipsis coelestibus bonis comprehensibilem ignorari non licet, 
quanto cognitum despici periculosum est ! De Pcenitentia, 
c. 5. De Spectaculis, c. 2. De Corona Militis, c. 6. Ad 
Nationes, L. ii. c. 5. 



183 

the fashion with many to treat, not merely as 
vain and idle, but even as presumptuous and ' 
almost impious, every attempt to prove the ex- 
istence and attributes of God from the visible 
works of Creation, or from the internal consti- 
tution of man. " Unless," we are told, " the 
idea of a God had in the first instance 
been communicated to the mind; unless God 
had himself taught it to our first parents, and 
it had thus been transmitted through succeed- 
ing generations ; no contemplation of the works 
of creation — no induction from the phenomena 
of the natural and moral world could ever have 
enabled mankind to discover even his exist- 
ence. But as soon as we are taught that there 
is a Creator necessarily existent and of infinite 
perfections, our understandings readily admit 
the idea of such a Being ; and we find in the 
natural world innumerable testimonies to the 
truth of the doctrine." 

Now we are ready to grant, that man never 
did by reasoning a posterio?*i discover the exis- 
tence of God; or 13 in Warburton's words, that 
" all religious knowledge of the Deity and of 
man's relation to him was revealed, and had 
descended traditionally down (though broken 

13 Doctrine of Grace, Book iii. c. 2. Warburton is speak- 
ing in the person of an opponent of Natural Religion. 



184 

and disjointed in so long a passage) from the 
first man." Still this concession does not, in 
our estimation, affect the only important part 
of the question; which is not, whether man 
ever did, without previous intimation of a Su- 
preme Being, reason from the works of Cre- 
ation to the existence of a Creator ; but 
whether, if he had so reasoned, he would 
have reasoned correctly. 

When, however, it is affirmed that man 
not only never did, but never could so have 
reasoned, we must be permitted to examine 
the arguments by which the assertion is sup- 
ported. Why then could not man discover 
the existence of God from the contempla- 
tion of the works of creation, &c. ? " Because, 
it is said, between matter and spirit, things 
visible and invisible, time and eternity, beings 
finite and beings infinite, objects of sense 
and objects of faith, the connexion is not 
perceptible to human observation." And we 
are, therefore, to conclude that, unless we had 
been taught that there is a spiritual, invi- 
sible, eternal, infinite Being, we never could 
have arrived at the knowledge of that Being. 
Yet the same writers contend that the fact 
is no sooner proposed, than it commands 
the assent of the understanding. AVhat then 



185 

are the grounds on which that assent is 
given? The mere statement cannot alone be' 
sufficient to produce conviction. The truth 
is, that the understanding assents, because the 
fact proposed agrees with our previous ob- 
servations — with the previous deductions of 
reason. Reason tells us that there are in the 
nature of man faculties for the existence 
of which we cannot account by any mo- 
dification of matter known to us — thought, 
memory, invention, judgement. Reason tells us 
that no bounds can be set to time or space- 
hence we are led to admit the existence of 
a spiritual, eternal, infinite Being. The rea- 
soning is equally valid, whether we apply it 
in confirmation of a fact which has been re- 
vealed to us; or without any previous reve- 
lation infer that fact from it. The latter is 
doubtless by far the more difficult operation: 
but we are now speaking only of its possibility 
or impossibility. The 14 same series of proofs 
by which we establish a known truth, might 
surely have conducted us to the knowledge 
of that truth. 

14 To borrow an illustration from science. For how 
long a period were the ablest mathematicians employed in 
endeavouring to effect the passage from finite to infi- 
nite,, or from discrete to continuous, in geometry ? The 
discovery was at length made, and therefore was at all 
times possible. 



186 

Let us suppose a sceptic to ask why we 
believe the existence of God: what must be 
our reply ? According to the writers whose 
opinions we are now considering: "This truth 
was originally made known by revelation." 
But if the sceptic proceeded to deny, as he 
probably would, the authority of the revelation, 
by what arguments must we endeavour to con- 
vince him? The answer is, "we must neces- 
sarily refer him to those testimonies, which the 
natural and moral phenomena of the world abun- 
dantly supply, of a Creator all-wise, powerful, 
good." It is admitted then by the very answer 
that those testimonies are sufficient to prove to 
the sceptic the existence of God; and is not 
this in fact to give up the point in dispute? 

Perhaps, however, there may be some who 
will foresee this inevitable consequence of re- 
ferring the sceptic to testimonies drawn from 
the natural and moral world ; and will answer, 
"We can prove the authority of the revelation 
by historical investigation. We possess certain 
records, the genuineness of which we have ascer- 
tained ; these declare that at a certain time a 
revelation was made from Heaven; and that 
the person who was sent to make it, attested 
the truth of his mission by miracles." Perhaps 
the sceptic will reply, that no human testimony 



187 

can establish the credit of a miracle. How is 
this objection to be answered but by a refer- 
ence to the natural world? by shewing that 
what we call the course of nature, from which 
a miracle is said to be a deviation, is in fact 
only a system appointed by the God of nature ; 
and consequently liable to be suspended or 
altered according to his pleasure ? Or perhaps 
the sceptic may say, that pretensions to mira- 
culous powers have abounded in all ages; and 
that, as such pretensions have in the majority 
of instances been shewn to be false, we may 
reasonably conclude that they were so in all. 
To meet this objection, we must refer to the 
criteria of miracles, which are all deductions 
of human reason; and shew that the purposes, 
' for which the miraculous powers are said to 
have been exerted, were consonant to just con- 
ceptions of the Divine Nature and Attributes : 
and those, conceptions derived from sources 
extraneous and independent of the Revelation 
itself. For we must not, in the first instance, 
say, that we obtain the knowledge of the 
nature and attributes of God from a revelation, 
and then prove the truth of that revelation by 
a reference to the knowledge so obtained. 

But is not this, it will be asked, to consti- 
tute human reason the judge of the Divine 



188 

dispensations ? Is it not to say that man, blind 
and ignorant man, can certainly determine what 
ought and what ought not to proceed from 
God ? By no means. It is only to compare 
one set of facts with another; to compare the 
conceptions of the Divine nature, which we 
derive from the perusal of the Bible, with those 
which we derive from the contemplation of 
the phenomena of the natural and moral 
world. If the written word and the visible 
world both proceed from the same author, they 
cannot but agree in the testimony which they 
bear to his character and attributes. 

Men, it is true, have not unfrequently been 
induced by the love of paradox, by the desire 
of obtaining a reputation for superior talent 
and acuteness, or by other motives of a si- 
milar description, to assert the all-sufficiency 
of human reason, and to deny the necessity 
of a revelation. Hence many good and pious 
Christians have run into the opposite extreme, 
and been disposed to regard all, who have 
recourse to reason and the light of nature in 
the investigation of religious truth, as little 
better than infidels ; puffed up with a presump- 
tuous conceit of their own knowledge, and sit- 
ing in judgement on the fitness of the Divine 
procedure. Yet what just ground is there 



189 

for these heavy accusations ? Is not reason the 
gift of God? Does not the light of nature 
emanate from the author of nature ? from Him 
who is the fountain of light? In what then 
consists the presumption of endeavouring to 
trace the Divine character and operations, by 
means of that light, which God has himself 
supplied? The knowledge of divine things 
which we acquire by the proper exercise of 
our various faculties on the phenomena of the 
visible world, is as strictly the gift of God, 
as that which we derive from the perusal of 
his revealed word. 

Warburton, in the 2d and 3d Chapters of 
the third Book of the Doctrine of Grace, has 
pointed out with his usual acuteness, the causes 
in which the existing disposition to under- 
value and condemn the argument a posteriori 
originated. In their endeavours to defend our 
holy religion, divines, instead of taking their 
stand upon the firm basis of truth, have been 
too apt to shift their ground, and think opi- 
nions right in proportion as they were further 
removed from those of the adversary with whom 
they were immediately contending. Hence 
they have continually run into extremes ; some- 
times exalting human reason above all due 
bounds ; at other times as unjustly depreciating 



190 

it. In the seventeenth century, fanaticism was 
the error against which the clergy had prin- 
cipally to contend ; and in order to place them- 
selves at the greatest possible distance from 
it, they took every opportunity of launching 
forth into the praises of human reason, and 
asserting its sufficiency to the discovery of 
divine truth ; till the Gospel at length came 
to be spoken of as a mere republication of 
the religion of nature. The infidel was not 
slow in availing himself of the advantage which 
such unguarded expressions afforded him; and 
began to deny the necessity of revelation, 
under the pretence that natural religion was 
sufficient for every purpose. Our divines again 
took the alarm; and, instead of endeavouring 
to mark out the precise bounds of reason and 
revelation, saw no better mode of extricating 
themselves from the difficulty, than by run- 
ning into the opposite extreme, and decrying 
natural religion with as much vehemence as 
their predecessors had extolled it. — To return 
to Tertullian. 

We have seen his opinion respecting the 
testimony, borne by the soul of man, to the 
unity and attributes of God, and to a future 
state. Let us now examine his sentiments 
respecting the soul itself; which are detailed 



191 

in the 15 Treatise de Anima. After the body 
or flesh 16 of Adam had been formed out of the 
17 dust of the earth, God breathed into his 
nostrils the 18 breath of life, and man became 
a living soul. Man, therefore, is composed of 
two parts, crapf; and yj/vxi, Caro and 19 Anima, 



15 We have seen that our author wrote a distinct Treatise 
on the Origin of the Soul, de Censu Animae, against Her- 
mogenes, who contended that it was formed out of matter. 
Chap. I. p. 64. 

16 c. 3. See, concerning the creation of man, de Resur- 
rectione Carnis, cc. 5. 7. 

17 Tertullian supposes the earth out of which man was 
made, to have been in a humid state, having been lately 
covered with water. De Baptismo, c. 3. Adv. Valentinianos, 
c. 24. Adv. Hermogenem, c. 29- Qui tunc de limo formari 
habebat. Adv. Praxeam, c. 12. De limo caro in Adam. De 
Anima, c. 27. For a definition of the body, see de Resur- 
rectione Carnis, c. 35. 

18 This breath Tertullian sometimes calls the substance 
of God. A rationali scilicet artifice non tantum factus 
(homo), sed etiam ex substantia ipsius animatus. Adv. 
Praxeam, c. 5. Compare adv. Marc. L. ii. cc. 5, 6. Quoquo 
tamen, inquis, modo substantia Creatoris delicti capax inve- 
nitur, quum afflatus Dei, id est, anima, in homine deliquit. 
c. 9. The objection here stated was urged, not only by 
the Marcionites, but also by Hermogenes. See de Anima, 
c. 11. 

19 Tertullian sometimes uses the word Spiritus to desig- 
nate the Soul. See de Baptismo, cc. 4. 5. De Poenitentia, 
c. 3. Siquidem et caro et Spiritus Dei res; alia manu ejus 
expressa; alia afflatu ejus consummata. De Spectaculis, c. 2. 
Et tamen et corpore et spiritu desciit a suo institutore. 
In another passage in the same Tract, c. 13. Spiritus and 
Anima are joined together, and appear to be synonymous, 
unless the former means the breath. Quae non intestinis 

transiguntur, 



192 

flesh and soul ; and the term soul, according to 
Tertullian, includes both the vital and intel- 
lectual principles, the latter of which was after- 
Wards distinguished by the name vovs. Animus 
or Mens. He describes 20 vovs, or Animus, as 
co-existent and con substantial with the soul, yet 
distinct from it, as a minister or deputy is 
from his principal; being the instrument by 
which the soul acts, apprehends, moves. For 
that the pre-eminence, principalitas, is in the 
soul, Anima, not in the mind, Animus, is evi- 



transiguntur, sed in ipso Spiritu et Anima digeruntur. See 
also c 17- sub fine, and de Anima, cc. 10, 11. But gene- 
rally, Tertullian uses the word Spiritus to designate the Holy 
Spirit ; the communication of whose influence constitutes the 
Spiritual Man, TrvevixariKos, in contradistinction to the animal 
man, -v^i^ko's. Qui non tantum anima? erant, verum et spiritus, 
c. 26. In c. 41. we find the Spirit clearly distinguished from 
the soul. Sequitur animam nubentem Spiritui caro, ut dotale 
mancipium, et jam non anima? famula, sed Spiritus. Using 
the word Spiritus in this sense, he calls the soul suffectura 
Spiritus (Quia suffectura est quodammodo Spiritus Anima. 
Adv. Marc. L. i. c. 28.) the substance on which the Spirit acts, 
or its instrument ; and in the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis, 
c. 40. he says, that the inward man is renewed per suggestum 
Spiritus. See also de Monogamia, c. 1. 

20 Proinde et animum, sive mens est, vou? apud Graecos, 
non aliud quid intelligimus, quam suggestum animae inge- 
nitum et insitum et nativitus proprium, quo agit, quo sapit, 
quern secum habens ex semetipsa se commoveat in semetipsa. 
C 12. Again, in the same chapter, near the end. Nos 
autem animum ita dicimus animae concretum, non ut sub- 
stantia, alium, sed ut substantia? officium. Again in c. 18. 
Putabis quidem abesse animum ab anima, siquando animo 
ita afficimur, ut nesciamus nos vidisse quid vel audisse, quia 

alibi 



193 

dent from the language of common life. We 
21 say that a rich man feeds so many souls, not 
so many minds; that a dying man breathes 
out his soul, not his mind; that Christ came 
to save the souls, not the minds of men. 

"The 22 Scriptures then," Tertullian pro- 
ceeds, "prove, in opposition to Plato, that 
the soul has a beginning. They prove also, 
in opposition to the same philosopher, that 
the soul is corporeal." 25 On this last point 
great difference of opinion existed ; some phi- 
losophers, maintaining, with Clean thes, that, as 

alibi fuerit animus: adeo contendam, immo ipsam animam 
nee vidisse, nee audisse, quia alibi fuerit cum sua vi, id 
est, animo. De Resurrectione Carnis, c. 40. Porro Apostolus 
interiorem hominem non tarn animam, quam mentem atque 
animum intelligi mavult, id est/ non substantiam ipsam, sed 
substantias saporem. 

21 c. 13. 22 c. 4. 

23 c. 5. Tertullian also ascribes a body to the Spirit. 
Licet enim et animae corpus sit aliquod, suae qualitatis, sicut et 
spiritus. Adv. Marc. L. v. c. 15. See also c. 10. Et si habet 
aliquod proprium corpus anima vel spiritus, ut possit videri 
corpus animale animam significare, et corpus spiritale spi- 
ritum: and adv. Praxeam, c. 7- Quis enim negabit Deum 
corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est ? Spiritus enim corpus 
sui generis in sua, effigie. He remarks in general, Omne, 
quod est, corpus est sui generis ; nihil est incorporale, nisi 
quod non est. De Carne Christi, c. 11. Nisi fallor enim, 
omnis res aut corporalis aut incorporalis sit necesse est; ut . 
concedam interim esse aliquid incorporale de substantiis 
duntaxat, quum ipsa substantia corpus sit rei cuj usque. Adv. 
Hermogenem, c. 35. 

N 



194 

there could be no mutual action of things cor- 
poreal and things incorporeal upon each other, 
and as the soul and body certainly do act upon 
each other, the soul must be corporeal. 24 Plato, 
on the contrary, contended, that every body 
must be either animale, animated by a soul, 
in which case it will be set in motion by some 
internal action; or inanimale, not animated by 
a soul, in which case it will be set in motion 
by some external action ; but the soul falls 
under neither of these classes, being that which 
sets the body in motion. To this Tertullian 
replies, that undoubtedly the soul can neither 
be called animale nor inanimale ; still it is a 
body, though sui generis. It is itself set in 
motion by external action ; when, for instance, 
it is under the influence of prophetic inspira- 
tion ; and it sets bodies in motion, which it 
could not do if it were not a body. Plato 
further argued that the modes, in which we 
arrive at the knowledge of the qualities of 
things corporeal and things incorporeal, are per- 
fectly distinct. The knowledge of the former 
is obtained through the bodily senses, sight, 
touch, &c. ; of the latter, of benevolence for 
instance, or malevolence, through the intel- 
lectual senses : the soul, therefore, is incorpo- 
real. Tertullian denies the correctness of this 

24 c. 6. 



195 

distinction ; and contends, on the contrary, that, 
as the soul is advertised of the existence of 
things incorporeal, of sounds, colours, smells, 
through the medium of the corporeal senses, 
the fair inference rather is, that the soul is 
corporeal. "Still it must be allowed that the 
soul and body have each its peculiar suste- 
nance: the latter is supported by meat and 
drink: the former by wisdom and learning." 
Here Tertullian appeals to 25 medical authority; 
and contends that corporeal aliment is neces- 
sary also to the well-being of the soul, which 
would sink without it. Study does not feed, 
it only adorns the soul: not to mention, he 
adds, that the Stoics affirmed the arts and 
sciences to be corporeal. 26 His last argument 
is drawn from the Scriptures, which speak of 
the torments endured by the soul of the rich 
man, when in a state of separation from the 
body — in that intermediate state in which the 
soul remains until the general resurrection. 

25 Soranus, the physician, whom Tertullian quotes by 
name, appears to have been a materialist, and to have main- 
tained the mortality of the soul. 

26 c. 7- Compare de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 17. There 
is, however, some variation in Tertullian's language on this 
subject. In the Apology, c. 48. he speaks as if the soul 
could not suifer when separated from the body : Ideoque 
repraesentabuntur et corpora, quia neque pati quicquam 
potest anima sola sine stabili materia, id est, carne. See 
also de Testimonio Anima?, c. 4. 

N2 



196 

But if the soul can suffer, it must be corpo- 
real ; were it not corporeal, it would not have 
that whereby it could suffer. 27 Nor let it be 
argued that the soul is incorporeal, because it 
is invisible; all bodies have not the same pro- 
perties ; that of invisibility is peculiar to the 
soul. But though invisible to the eye of sense, 
it is visible to the eye of the spirit; for 
28 St. John, when in the Spirit, beheld the souls 
of the martyrs. The specimens already pro- 
duced will give the reader a sufficiently accu- 
rate idea of the arguments, by which the parties 
in this dispute supported their respective opi- 
nions ; we will, therefore, proceed at once to 
state Tertullian's conclusion. 29 He ascribes to 
the soul 50 a peculiar character or constitution, 
boundary, length, breadth, height, and figure. 
This conclusion he confirms by the testimony 
of a Christian female, who was favoured with 
a vision, in which the soul was exhibited to 
her in a corporeal shape, and appeared a spirit; 
not however an empty illusion, but capable 
of being grasped by the hand, soft and trans- 
parent, and of an sethereal colour, and in form 
agreeing exactly with the human form. For 
when God breathed into Adam the breath of 
life, that breath, being diffused through every 

2 7 c. 8. 28 Apoc. vi. 9. 

29 c. 9. 30 The Latin word is " habitum." 



197 

part and member of his body, produced an 
interior man corresponding in all respects to 
the exterior. 

Having shewn that the soul is corporeal, 
31 our author proceeds to maintain that it is 
simple and uncompounded ; in opposition to 
certain philosophers, who distinguished between 
the soul and the spirit, Anima and Spiritus, 
and made the latter a different substance from 
the former ; the soul being according to them 
the vital principle, the principle by which men 
live — the spirit that by which they breathe. 
Anatomists, they said, inform us that moths, 
and ants, and gnats, have no organs of respi- 
ration ; they have the vital without the breath- 
ing principle; those principles are consequently 
distinct. 52 But Tertullian will not allow that 
we can thus reason from an insect to an human 
being. In the nature of man, life and breath 
are inseparable. The distinction, therefore, be- 
tween Anima and Spiritus, is only a distinc- 



31 c. 10, 11. 

32 In c. 19, Tertullian distinguishes between the Vital 
Principle in man, and in all other created things. Denique 
arbores vivere, nee tamen sapere, secundum Aristotelem, et 
si quis alius substantiam animalem in universa communicat, 
quae apud nos in homine privata res est, non modo ut Dei 
opus quod et caetera, sed ut Dei flatus quod haec sola, quam 
dicimus cum omni instructu suo nasci. 



198 

tion of words, similar to that between Lux 
and Dies, the light and the day. The spirit 
or breath is an act or operation of the soul : 
the soul breathes. 55 We must not, however, 
be led astray by the mere sound of words, 
and confound the spirit, which from the very 
birth of man is inseparably united to his soul, 
with the Spirit of God and the Spirit of the 
devil, which, though they act upon the soul, 
are extraneous to it. 

The 54 simplicity of the soul necessarily im- 
plies that it is indivisible. When, therefore, 
the philosophers talk of the parts of the soul, 
they speak inaccurately : they should say 
powers, or faculties, or operations, as of 
moving, acting, thinking, seeing, hearing, &c. 
Because different parts of the body are, as 
it were, allotted to the different senses, we 
must not suppose that the case is the same 
with the soul: on the contrary, the soul per- 
vades the whole frame ; as in the hydraulic 
organ of Archimedes one breath pervades the 

33 Erunt enim et aliae Spiritus species, ut ex Deo, ut 
ex Diabolo, c. 10. Compare c. 18. Ob haec ergo praestruximus 
neque animum aliud quid esse, quam animae suggestion et 
structum: neque spiritum extraneum quid quam quod et 
ipsa per flatum. Caeterum accessioni deputandum, quod aut 
Deus postea, aut Diabolus adspiraret. 

34 c. 14. 



199 

whole machine, and produces a variety of 
sounds. 35 With respect to the seat of the 
soul, the part of the body in which the prin- 
ciple of vitality and sensation peculiarly re- 
sides, to riyefioviKov, principale, Tertullian places 
it in the heart ; grounding his opinion upon 
those passages of Scripture, in which man is 
said to think, to believe, to sin, &c. with 
the heart. 

While, however, Tertullian denies that the 
soul is divisible into parts, he 56 admits Plato's 
distinction respecting its rational and irrational 
qualities; though he explains the distinction 
in a different manner. The soul of Adam, as 
created by God and in its original and natu- 
ral state, was rational. The irrational qualities 
were infused by the devil, when he seduced 
our first parents into transgression. Plato ap- 
plied the terms dvfxiKov and eTnOvimfjTiKov to the 
irrational qualities of the soul ; but, says Ter- 
tullian, there is a rational, as well as irra- 

35 Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 15. The ancient anato- 
mists appear to have instituted experiments for the purpose of 
ascertaining the seat of the soul,, by removing those parts of 
the body in which it has been usually supposed to reside. 
Their conclusion was, that nothing certain could be pro- 
nounced upon the subject; since choose what part you will as 
the seat of the soul, animals or insects may be found, in which 
the vital principle remains, after that part is removed. 

36 c. 16. 



200 

tional, indignation and desire ; indignation at 
sin, and desire of good. 

The 5T credit due to the testimony of the 
senses was a question on which great diver- 
sity of opinion existed among the philoso- 
phers. 58 The Platonists contended that no 
credit can be given to them, because in many 
instances their testimony is at variance with 
fact. Thus a straight oar immersed in the 
water appears bent — a parallel row of trees 
appears to converge to a point — the sky in the 
horizon appears to be united to the sea. The 
state of natural philosophy in Tertullian's days 
did not enable him to give a correct explanation 
of these appearances ; yet he seems to reason 
correctly, when he says that, as causes can be 
assigned why the appearances should be such 
as they are, they constitute no ground for re- 
jecting the testimony of the senses. To per- 
sons suffering from a redundancy of gall all 
things taste bitter ; but the true conclusion is, 
that the body is diseased, not that the sense 
of taste is fallacious. Tertullian, however, does 
not rely solely upon reasoning : he points out 

3 7 c. 17. 

38 In the Tract de Corona, c. 5. Tertullian calls the senses 
the instruments of the soul, by which it sees, hears, &c 
Compare the first Tusculan, c. 20. or 46. 



201 

the fatal consequences to the Gospel, which 
will follow from admitting the notion of the 
Platonists. If we cannot trust to the testimony 
of the senses, what grounds have we for be- 
lieving that Christ either lived, or wrought 
miracles, or died, or rose again? 

Closely 39 connected with this notion re- 
specting the fallacy of the senses was the 
notion that the soul, so long as it is united 
to the body, cannot attain to the ^knowledge 
of the truth ; but must be involved in the maze 
of opinion and error. The business, therefore, 
of the wise man is to abstract the mind from 
the senses, and to raise it to the contemplation 
of those invisible, incorporeal, divine, eternal 
ideas, which are the patterns of the visible 
objects around us. Doubtless, answers Ter- 
tullian, the distinction between things corpo- 
real and things spiritual, things visible and 
things invisible, is just ; and the soul arrives at 
the knowledge of them through different chan- 
nels ; being conversant with the one by means 
of the senses, with the other by means of the 
mind or intellect. But the knowledge obtained 



39 c. 18. 

40 The distinction between Scientia and Opinio must be 
familiar to all who are acquainted with Cicero's Philosophical 
Writings. > 



202 

through the latter source is not more certain 
than that obtained through the former. 

In 41 opposition to those who affirmed that 
the soul of the infant was 42 destitute of intel- 
lect, which they supposed to be subsequently 
introduced — Tertullian contends, that all the 
faculties of the soul are co-existent with it; 
though they are afterwards more or less per- 
fectly developed in different individuals, 45 ac- 
cording to the different circumstances of birth, 
health, education, condition of life. But ob- 
serving the great variety of intellectual and 
moral characters in the world, we are apt to 
conclude that it arises from some difference 
in the original constitution of the soul ; whereas 
that is always the same, though it is after- 
wards modified by external circumstances. This 
remark is particularly directed against the 
44 Valentinian notion that different seeds, ma- 
terial, animal, or spiritual, are introduced 
into the souls of men after their birth ; whence 
arise the diversities of character discernible 
among them. One necessary inference from 
this notion is, that the character of the indi- 



41 cc. 19,20, 21. 

42 In other words, that the infant possesses the vital, but 
not the intellectual, principle. 

43 Compare cc. 24 and 38. u Compare c. 11. 



203 

vidual is immutably determined by the nature 
of the seed infused into his soul : whether 
good or bad, it must always remain so. Our 
author, on the contrary, argues, that the cha- 
racter of God alone is immutable, because He 
alone is self-existent : the character of a created 
being must be liable to change, and will de- 
pend upon the use which he makes of the 
freedom of his will — a freedom which he derives 
from nature. Tertullian, however, was far 
from intending to assert the sufficiency of 
man to form within himself by the mere ex- 
ercise of his free-will a holy temper and dis- 
position; 45 he expressly states that the free- 
dom of the will is subject to the influence of 
Divine Grace. The following may be taken 
as a correct representation of his meaning. 
The character of man is not irrevocably fixed, 
as the Valentinians affirm, by any qualities 
infused into his soul subsequently to his birth. 
The diversities of character observable in dif- 
ferent individuals, and in the same individual 
at different times, must be referred to the 
operation of external circumstances, and to the 

45 Haee erit vis Divinae Gratia?, potentior utique natura, 
habens in nobis subjacentem sibi liberam arbitrii potestatem, 
quod aure^ovcriov dicitur, qua? quum sit et ipsa naturalis 
atque mutabilis, quoquo vertitur, natura convertitur. Inesse 
autem nobis to avrejjowiov naturaliter, jam Marcioni osten- 
dimus et Hermogeni, c. 21. 



204 

different degrees in which Divine Grace in- 
fluences the determinations of the will. 

Tertullian 46 now recapitulates all that he 
has said on the subject of the soul; and affirms 
that it derives its origin from the breath of 
God — that it is 47 immortal; corporeal; that it 
has a figure ; is simple in substance ; possessing 
within itself the principle of intelligence ; oper- 
ating in different ways (or through different 
channels) ; endued with free-will ; affected by 
external circumstances, and thus producing that 
infinite variety of talent and disposition ob- 
servable among mankind ; rational ; designed to 
rule the whole man ; possessing 48 an insight 
into futurity. Moreover, the souls of all the 
inhabitants of the earth are derived from one 
common source, the soul of Adam. 

This 49 last point he proceeds to establish 
by first refuting Plato's notions respecting 

46 c. 22. Definimus Animam, Dei flatu natam, immortalem, 
corporalem, effigiatam, substantia simplicem, de suo sapien- 
tem, varie procedentem, liberam arbitrii, accidentiis obnoxiam, 
per ingenia mutabilem, rationalem, dominatricem, divinatri- 
cem, ex una redundantem. # 

47 Immortal in its own nature. Compare de Res. Carnis, 
cc. 18, 34, 85. 

48 Tertullian here speaks of a natural insight into futurity ; 
not of the spirit of prophecy, which is derived from the grace 
of God. See cc. 24, 41. 49 c. 23. 



205 

the origin and pre-existence of the soul.— 
According to him, Plato said that the souls 
of men are continually passing to and fro be- 
tween heaven and earth; that they originally 
existed in heaven with God, and were there 
conversant with those eternal ideas of which 
the visible things below are only the images. 
Hence during their residence on earth they do 
not acquire any new knowledge; but merely 
recal to their recollection what they knew in 
heaven, and forgot in their passage from hea- 
ven to earth. Plato further argued, that the 
heavenly powers, 50 the progeny of God, who 
were entrusted by him with the creation of 
man, and received for that purpose an immortal 
soul, 51 froze around it a mortal body. 52 In 
refuting these notions, Tertullian argues prin- 
cipally upon the inconsistency of Plato ; who, 
at the same time that he makes the soul 
self-existent, and places it almost on an equa- 
lity with the Deity, yet supposes it capable 
of forgetting what passed in a previous state. 
53 He alludes also to another philosophical no- 
tion, that the soul is introduced into the 

50 Genimina Dei. 

51 Mortale ei circumgelaverint corpus. 

52 c. 24. 

53 c. 25. Perinde animam, extraneam alias et extorrem 
uteri, prima aspiratione nascentis infantis adduci, sicut exspira- 
tione novissima educi. 



206 

foetus after its birth ; being inhaled as it 
were when the infant first draws breath, and 
exhaled when man dies. 54 This notion he 
conceives to be sufficiently refuted by the ex- 
perience of every pregnant woman. His own 
opinion is, that the soul and body are con- 
ceived together; the womb of the mother 
being impregnated at the same time by their 
respective seeds, which, though different in 
kind, are from the first inseparably united. 
I must omit the arguments by which he 
supports this opinion. They are of such 
a nature that he feels himself obliged to apo- 
logise for them, by saying that, as the busi- 
ness of a controversialist is to establish his point, 
he is sometimes under the necessity of sacri- 
ficing modesty to truth. The conclusion is, 
that when God formed Adam out of the dust 
of the earth, and breathed into his nostrils the 
breath of life, the seeds of the body and soul 
were inseparably united together in him ; and 
have been derived, in the same state of union, 
from him to his posterity. Thus Tertul- 
lian establishes his position, that the souls of 

54 Respondete matres, vosque praegnantes, vosque puerpurae ; 
steriles et masculi taceant; vestrae naturae Veritas quaeritur, 
vestrae passionis fides convenitur, an aliquam in fcetu sentiatis 
vivacitatem alienam de vestro ? de quo palpitent ilia, micent 
latera, tota ventris ambitio pulsetur, ubique ponderis regio 
mutetur ? &c. 



207 

all mankind are derived from one common 
source, the soul of Adam. 

Quitting 55 Plato, Tertullian now passes to 
the Pythagorean doctrine of the Metempsycho- 
sis. I will mention one of his arguments 
against this doctrine, on account of the in- 
formation which it supplies respecting the 
height to which cultivation and civilization 
were then carried. 56 " If the doctrine of the 
Metempsychosis," he says, " is true, the num- 
bers of mankind must always remain the same ; 
there can be no increase of population ; where- 
as we know the fact to be otherwise. So 
great is the increase that, although we are 
continually sending out colonies, and penetrating 
into new regions, we cannot dispose of the 
excess. Every country is now accessible to 
the traveller and the merchant. Pleasant farms 
now smile, where formerly were dreary and 
dangerous wastes — cultivated fields now oc- 
cupy the place of forests — flocks and herds 
have expelled the wild beasts — sands are 
sown — rocks are planted — marshes are drained — 
and where once was a single cottage, is now 
a populous city. We no longer speak with 
horror of the savage interior of the islands, 

55 c. 28. 5b ' c. 30. 



208 

or of the dangers of their rocky coasts; every 
where are houses, and inhabitants, and govern- 
ment, and civilized life. Still our population 
continually increases, and occasions fresh grounds 
of complaint: our numbers are burthensome 
to the world, which cannot furnish us with 
the means of subsistence : such is our state 
that we no longer look upon pestilence, and 
famine, and wars, and earthquakes, as positive 
evils, but as remedies provided by Providence 
against a greater calamity — as the only means 
of pruning the redundant luxuriance of the 
human race." Professor Malthus himself 
could not have lamented more feelingly the 
miseries resulting from an excess of popula- 
tion ; or have pointed out with greater acute- 
ness the natural checks to that excess. 

I shall omit 57 Tertullian's other arguments 
against the doctrine of the Metempsychosis, 
as well as his observations respecting 58 the 
difference of the sexes in the human species ; 
59 the state of the fetus in the womb ; 60 the 
growth of the soul to maturity ; and 61 the cor- 

57 He occupies eight chapters from c. 28 to c. 36 in the 
discussion of this doctrine, and in proving that Simon Magus 
and Carpocrates founded some of their heretical notions 
upon it. 

58 c 36. 59 c. 37. 60 c. 38. 61 cc. 39, 40, 41. 



209 

ruption of human nature : to his remarks, how- 
ever, on the last of these topics I shall hereafter 
have occasion to refer. The next subject of 
which he treats is 62 sleep. Having stated the 
opinions of the different philosophers, he prefers 
that of the Stoics, who defined sleep — e3 a tem- 
porary suspension of the activity of the senses. 
64 Sleep he conceives to be necessary only to 
the body; the soul, being immortal, neither 
requires nor even admits a state of rest. In, 
sleep, therefore, 65 when the body is at rest, 
the soul, which never rests, being unable to 
use the members of the body, uses its own ; 
and the dreamer seems to go through all the 
operations necessary to the performance of 
certain acts, though nothing is performed. 
66 Tertullian admits that there are well authen- 
ticated accounts of persons who never dreamed 
in the course of their lives. 67 Suetonius says 
that this was the case with Nero ; and 68 Theo- 
pompus, with Thrasymedes. Our author men- 

62 cc. 42, 43. 63 Resolutionem sensualis vigoris. 

64 Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 18. Arctius dicam, ne in 
soranura quidem cadit Anima cum corpore, ne turn quidem 
sternitur cum carne. Etenim agitatur in somnis et jacti- 
tatur; quiesceret autem si jaceret. 

65 c. 45. We have seen in what sense Tertullian ascribes 
members to the soul. 

66 c. 44. 

67 In Nerone, c. 46. 

68 See Plutarch, de defectu Oraeulorum, c. 50. - 

O 



210 

tions also the story of 69 Hermotimus ; of 
whom it was recorded that, when he slept, 
his soul entirely abandoned and wandered 
away from his body : in this state (his wife 
having revealed the secret) his body was 
seized by his enemies, who burned it; and 
his soul, returning too late, found itself de- 
prived of its habitation. *° Tertullian does not 
attempt to reconcile these phenomena, with 
his theory of the perpetual activity of the 
soul ; but says that we must receive any so- 
lution of them, rather than admit that the 
soul can be separated from the body, except 
by death: — or that the soul can sink into a 
state of absolute rest, which would imply its 
mortality. We have seen that Tertullian ap- 
plies the word ecstasis — which he interprets 
71 Excessus sensus amentia? instar — to the state 
of the prophet's mind, when under the influ- 
ence of inspiration. He applies the same 
term to the state of the soul when dreaming; 
and evidently supposes that the knowledge 



72 



69 See Pliny, Hist. Nat. L. vii. c. 52. Plutarch, de Daemo- 
nio Socratis, c. 22. calls him Hermodorus. 

70 He says that the effect of fasting upon himself was, not 
to make him sleep without dreaming (such an admission would 
have been fatal to his theory) ; but to make him so dream that 
he was not conscious of having dreamed. Jejuniis autem 
nescio an ego solus plurimum ita somniem, ut me somniasse 
non sentiam, c. 48 : — a subtle distinction. 

71 c. 45. 72 c. 4$. 



211 

of future events was frequently communicated 
to it in dreams. 73 Some dreams, he adds, 
proceed from God; others from daemons; 
others are suggested by intense application of 
the mind to a particular subject; others again 
are so utterly wild and extravagant, that they 
can scarcely be related, much less accounted 
for or interpreted : these last are to be ascribed 
peculiarly to the ecstatic influence. 

From 74 sleep, the image of deatli, Ter^ 
tullian passes to death itself; which he defines 
the separation of the soul from the body. 
75 ft When we say," he continues, " that death is 
natural to man, we speak with reference, not 
to his original nature as given him by his 
Maker ; but to his actual nature as polluted 
by sin. Had Adam continued in his state of 
innocence, this separation of the soul from 
the body would never have taken place. 
Sin introduced death, which even in its mildest 
form is a violence done to our nature; for 
how can the intimate union between the body 
and soul be dissolved without violence ?" 76 After 
this separation from the body, the souls of the 
mass of mankind descend to the parts below 
the earth; there to remain until the day of 

73 c. 47- 74 cc 50, 51. 

75 c. 52. 75 c 55# 

O 2 



21 £ • 

judgement. The souls of the martyrs alone 
pass not through this middle state, but are 
transferred immediately to heaven. 

Tertullian 77 proceeds to enquire whether the 
soul, after it has once passed into the lower 
parts of the earth, can leave them and revisit 
these upper regions. This question he deter- 
mines in the negative ; arguing principally from 
the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. But 
the daemons who are continually labouring to 
seduce us into error, though they cannot call 
up the soul after death, yet can practise 
illusions upon the senses; and by presenting 
themselves under human forms, persuade men 
that they are the ghosts of persons deceased, 
Thus Saul was persuaded that he saw and con- 
versed with Samuel. In like manner, Tertul- 
lian refers to the agency of daemons the de- 
ceptions practised by the dealers in magic; 
who generally affected to call up the spirits 
of such persons as had come to an untimely 
end: taking advantage of the popular super- 
stition, that the souls of men, cut off by a 
violent death, hover about the earth until the 
period has elapsed to which, had they not 
been so cut off, their lives would have been 
extended. 

77 cc. 56, 57- 



%13 

But 78 in what state, it may be asked, 
does the soul remain during its abode in the 
lower parts of the earth? Does it sleep? 
" We have seen," answers Tertullian, " that sleep 
is an affection of the body, not of the soul. 
When united to the body, the soul does not 
sleep; much less, when separate from the 
body. ~No: the righteous judgements of God 
begin to take effect in this intermediate state. 
The souls of the good receive a foretaste of 
the happiness, and the souls of the wicked of 
the misery, which will be assigned them as 
their everlasting portion, at the day of final 
retribution." 

Such are Tertullian's speculations upon the 
origin, nature, and destiny of the soul. Should 
the examination of them have appeared some- 
what minute and tedious, it must be remem- 
bered that the only mode of putting the 
reader in possession of the state of philoso- 
phy in any age is to exhibit to him the ques-; 
tions which formed the subjects of discussion, 
and the manner in which they were discussed. 

78 c. 58. Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 17-j> and the 40th of 
King Edward's Articles. Qui animas defunctorum praedicant 
usque ad diem judicii absque omni sensu dormire, aut illas 
asserunt una cum corporibus mori, et extremo die cum illis 
excitandas, ab Orthodoxa Fide, quae nobis in Sacris Literis 
traditur, prorsus dissentiunt. 



214 

The result of the examination must, we think, 
be deemed favourable to our author's charac- 
ter for talent and ingenuity. Many of the 
questions proposed may appear trifling — many 
of his arguments weak and inconclusive; the 
questions, however, are not more trifling, or 
the arguments more inconclusive, than those 
which occur in the writings of the most cele- 
brated philosophers of antiquity. It would be 
the extreme of absurdity to compare the 
writings of Plato and Tertullian, as composi- 
tions; but if they are considered as speci- 
mens of philosophical investigation, of reason- 
ing and argument, he who professes to admire 
Plato will hardly escape the charge of incon- 
sistency, if he thinks meanly or speaks con- 
temptuously of Tertullian. 

In further illustration of our author's phi- 
losophical opinions, we shall proceed briefly 
to state his notions respecting the nature of 
angels and daemons. 79 He asserts, in the first 

79 Apology, c. 22. Atque adeo dicimus esse substantias 
quasdam Spiritales; nee nomen novum est. Sciunt daemo- 
nes Philosophy Socrate ipso ad doemonii arbitrium expectante.... 
deemones sciunt Poetae ; et jam vulgus indoctum in usum male- 

dicti frequentat Angelos quoque etiam Plato non negavit. 

See also adv. Marcionem, L. ii. c 8. Sed adflatus Dei gene- 
rosior Spiritu Materiali, quo Angeli constiterunt. Apology, 
c. 46. Quum secundum Deos Philosophi Daemones deputent. 
De Anima, c. 1. 



215 

place, that there are spiritual substances, or 
material spirits : this is not denied even by 
the philosophers. 80 These spiritual, or angelic 
substances were originally created to be the 
ministers of the Divine will; but some were 
betrayed into transgression. 81 Smitten with the 
beauty of the daughters of men, they descend- 
ed from heaven, 82 and imparted many branches 
of knowledge, revealed to themselves, but 
hitherto hidden from mankind : — the properties 
of metals — the virtues of herbs — the powers 
of enchantment — and the arts of divination 
and astrology. Out of complaisance also to 
their earthly brides, they communicated the 
arts which administer to female vanity : — of 
polishing and setting precious stones — of dy- 
ing wool — of preparing cosmetics. 

From 85 these corrupt angels sprang daemons ; 
a still more corrupt race of spirits, whose actu- 
ating principle is hostility against man, and 

80 Nos officia divina Angelos credimus. De Anima, c. 37. 
Apology, c. 22. De Idololatria, c. 4. 

81 In proof of the alleged intercourse between the angels 
and the daughters of men, Tertullian appeals to Genesis vi. 2. 
de Virgin, vel. c. 7- and to the apocryphal book of Enoch. De 
Cultu Fceminarum, L. i. c. 3. 

82 De Cultu Fceminarum, L. i. c. 2. L. ii. cc. 4, 10. De 
Idololatria, c. 9. Apology, c. 35. 

83 Apology, c. 22. Compare de Spectaculis, c. 2. 



whose sole object is to accomplish his destruc- 
tion. This they attempt in various ways ; but 
as they are invisible to the eye, their mischiev- 
ous activity is known only by its effects. They 
nip the fruit in the bud; they blight the 
corn; and, as through the tenuity and sub- 
tlety of their substance they can operate on 
the soul as well as the body, while they in- 
flict diseases on the one, they agitate the 
other with furious passions and ungovernable 
lust. 84 By the same property of their sub- 
stance they cause men to dream. 85 But their 
favourite employment is, to draw men off, from 
the worship of the true God, to idolatry. 
86 For this purpose they lurk within the statues 
of deceased mortals ; 87 practising illusions upon 
weak minds, and seducing them into a belief 
in the divinity of an idol. 88 In their attempts 

84 De Anima, cc. 47, 49. Apology, c. 23. 

85 Apology, cc. 23, 27- Compare de Idololatria, cc. 3, 
4, 15. 

86 De Spectaculis, cc. 10, 12, 13, 23. where Tertullian 
ascribes the invention of the games and scenic exhibitions 
to the daemons. 

87 The illusions practised by the professors of magic 
were, according to our author, peculiarly the work of 
daemons ; when for instance the object of the incantation was 
to raise a dead man from the grave, a daemon presented 
himself under the figure of the deceased. De Anima, c. 57. 
where the miracles performed by Pharaoh's magicians are 
mentioned. See p. 212. 

88 Apology, c. 22. 



217 

to deceive mankind, they derive great assist- 
ance from the rapidity with which they trans- 
port themselves from one part of the globe to 
another. They are thus enabled to know and 
to declare what is passing in the most distant 
countries ; so that they gain the credit of being 
the authors of events of which they are only 
the reporters. It was this peculiarity in the 
nature of daemons which enabled them to com- 
municate to the Pythian priestess what Crcesus 
was at that very moment doing in Lydia. 
In like manner, as they are continually pass- 
ing to and fro through the region of the air, 
they can foretel the changes of the weather; 
and thus procure for the idol the reputation 
of possessing an insight into futurity. When 
by their delusions they have induced men to 
offer sacrifice, 89 they hover about the victim ; 
snuffing up with delight the savoury steam , 
which is their proper food. The daemons em- 
ployed other artifices in order to effect the 
destruction of man. 90 As during their abode 

89 Haec enim daemoniorum pabula sunt. Ad Scapulam, 
c. 2. 

90 Apology, c. 22. Dispositiones etiam Dei, et tunc Pro- 
phetis concionantibus exceperunt et nunc lectionibus resonantibus 
carpunt. c. 21. Sciebant qui penes vos fabulas ad destructio- 
nem ^veritatis istius aemulas praeministraverunt. c. 47. Omnia 
adversus veritatem de ipsa veritate constructa sunt, operanti- 
bus semulationem istam Spiritibus erroris. Ab his adulte- 
ria hujusmodi salutaris discipline subornata; ab his quae- 

dam 



218 

in heaven they were enabled to obtain some 
insight into the nature of the divine dispen- 
sations, they endeavoured to pre-occupy the 
minds of men, and to prevent them from 
embracing Christianity ; by inventing fables 
bearing some resemblance to the truths which 
were to become the objects of faith under the 
Gospel. Thus they invented the tales of the 
tribunal of Minos and Hhadamanthus in the 
infernal regions; of the river Pyriphlegethon, 
and the Elysian Fields ; in order that when 
the doctrines of a future judgement, and of 
the eternal happiness and misery prepared for 
the good and wicked in another life, should 
be revealed, the common people might think 
the former equally credible, the philosopher 
equally incredible with the latter. 

As the purpose for which the angels were 
created was 91 to execute the commands of 
God, they who retain their original purity 

dam etiam fabulae immissae, quae de similitudine fidem 
infirmarent veritatis, vel earn sibi potius evincerent: ut 
quis ideo non putet Christianis credendum, quia nee 
Poetis nee Philosophis : vel ideo magis Poetis et Philoso- 
phis existimet credendum, quia non Christianis, &c. See 
also de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 40. and some very fan- 
ciful instances in the Tract de Spectaculis, c. 23. 

91 See note 80. The word Angel, as Tertullian remarks, is 
descriptive, not of a nature, but an office. Angelus, id est, 
nuntius ; officii, non naturae vocabulo. De Carne Christi, c. 14. 



219 

still 92 occupy themselves in observing the. 
course of human affairs, and fulfilling the 
duties allotted them : — thus, one angel is 
especially appointed to preside 95 over prayer; 
another 94 over baptism ; another 95 to watch 
over men in their dying moments, and as it 
were to call away their souls ; 96 another 
to execute the righteous judgements of God 
upon wicked men. Tertullian states also, on 
the authority of Scripture, that it is a part 
of their office to appear occasionally to men; 
in which case, according to him, they assume, 
not only the human form, 97 but the human 
body itself; by a peculiar privilege of their 
nature, which enables them to create 1 it out 
of nothing. It is worthy of observation that 
Tertullian, while he assigns to each angel a 

92 De Spectaculis, c. 27- Dubitas enim illo momento, quo 
in Diaboli Ecclesia fueris,, omnes Angelos prospicere de ccelo, 
et singulos denotare, &c. ? 

93 Angelo adhuc Orationis astante. De Oralione, c. 12. 

94 Angelus Baptismi Arbiter. De Baptismo, c. 6. 

95 De ipsius statim Angeli facie, Evocatoris animarunv 
Mercurii Poetarum. De Anima, c. 53. sub fine. 

96 Et judex te tradat Angelo Executionis, et ille te in 
carcerern mandet infernum. De Anima, c. 35. 

97 Adv. Marcionenr, L. iii. c. 9. De Carne Christi, cc. 3, 6. 
Igitur quum relatum non sit unde surapserint carnem, relin- 
quitur intellectui nostro non dubitare, hoc esse proprium 
Angelicae potestatis ex nulla materia corpus sibi sumere. 



220 

particular office or department — as prayer, 
baptism — uses a different language with respect 
to daemons; 98 assigning to each individual his 
attendant daemon : thus he accounts for the 
story of the " Daemon of Socrates. 

I will conclude this chapter by a few re- 
marks on Gibbon's representation of the opi- 
nions entertained by the primitive Christians 
respecting daemons. " It was," 10 ° he says, " the 
universal sentiment both of the Church and of 
heretics, that the daemons were the authors, 
the patrons, and the objects of idolatry." 
That Tertullian ascribed to them the two 
former characters is manifest from the fore- 
going statement of his opinions. They were 
the authors of idolatry; because every evil 
deed, every evil thought of man is the result 
of their corrupt suggestions ; and it was con- 
sequently by their instigation that he was first 
drawn aside from his allegiance to the one 
true God, and induced to offer his adorations 
to the creature instead of the Creator. They 

98 Nam et suggessimus nullum pene hominem carere 
daemonio. De Anima, c. 57. 

99 Apology, c. 46. Sane Socrates facilius diverso Spiritu 
agebatur ; si quidem aiunt daemonium illi a puero adhaesisse, 
pessimum revera paedagogum. De Anima, c. 1. See also 
jcc. 25, 39. 

100 Chap. xv. p. 46*3. Ed. 4to. 



221 

were the patrons; because they promoted its 
cause by practising illusions upon the senses of 
mankind, and thus confirming their belief in 
the divinity of the idol. But they were not, 
at least in Tertullian's estimation, the objects. 

101 He expressly says, that the objects of ido- 
latry were dead men ; who were conceived to 
be gods, on account of some useful invention 
by which they had contributed to the comfort 
and well-being of man in his present life. 

102 The daemons were content to lead man into 
error, and to feed upon the savoury steam 
arising from the sacrifices ; without attempting 
to propose themselves as the immediate objects 
of worship. 

101 Quando etiam error orbis propterea Deos praesumpserit, 
quos homines interdum confitetur, quoniam aliquid ab uno- 
quoque prospectum videtur utilitatibus et commodis vitae. 
Adv. Marcionem, L. f. c. 11. See also the Apology, cc. 10, 11. 
De Idololatria, c, 15. 

102 See de Corona, c. 10. where Tertullian is exposing 
the absurdity of placing crowns on the heads of Idols : Sed 
vacat totum, et est ipsum quoque opus mortuum, quantum in 
idolis ; vivum plane quantum in dsemoniis, ad quae perti- 
net superstitio. To crown an Idol, the ostensible object of 
worship, is useless ; since it can have no enjoyment of the 
fragrance or beauty of the flowers. The daemons alone (who 
lurk within the idols), profit by these superstitious practices. 



CHAP. IV. 

ON THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CHURCH. 



X ollowing Mosheim's arrangement, we 
now proceed to enquire, what information can 
be derived from the writings of Tertullian, 
respecting the government and discipline of 
the Church in his day. The edict of 1 Trajan, 
already alluded to, proves the extreme jea- 
lousy with which all associations were regarded 
by the Roman Emperors. We cannot, there- 
fore, be surprised that the intimate union which 
subsisted between the professors of Christianity 
rendered them objects of suspicion and distrust. 
One point, at which Tertullian aims in his 
Apology, is to convince the Governors, whom 
he is addressing, of the injustice of their sus- 
picions, by explaining the nature and pur- 
poses of the Christian assemblies. 2 " We form/* 
he says, "a body; being joined together by 
a community of religion, of discipline, and of 

1 See chap. II. note 46. 2 e. 39. 



223 

hope. In our assemblies we meet to offer up 
our united supplications to God — to read the' 
Scriptures — to deliver exhortations — to pro- 
nounce censures, cutting off, from communion 
in prayer and in every holy exercise, those 
who have been guilty of any flagrant offence. 
The older members, men of tried piety and 
prudence, preside ; having obtained the dignity, 
not by purchase, but by acknowledged merit. 
If any collection is made at our meetings, it 
is perfectly voluntary : each contributes accord- 
ing to his ability, either monthly, or as often 
as he pleases. These contributions we regard 
as a sacred deposit; not to be spent in feast- 
ing and gluttony, but in maintaining or bury- 
ing the poor, and relieving the distresses of 
the orphan, the aged, or the shipwrecked 
mariner. A portion is also appropriated to 
the use of those who are suffering in the cause 
of religion: who are condemned to the 
mines, or banished to the islands, or confined 
in prison." 

In this brief account of the Christian assem- 
blies, 3 Tertullian appears to speak of the Pre- 



3 Tertullian's words are, President probati quique Seniores, 
honorem istum non pretio, sed testimonio adepti: — which 
Bingham translates, The Bishops and Presbyters, who preside 
over us, are advanced to that honour only by public tes- 
timony, 



2M 

sidentship, as conferred solely in consideration 
of superior age and piety. It has, therefore, 
been inferred, either that the distinction be- 
tween the Clergy and the Laity was not then 
generally acknowledged in the Church; or at 
least that its validity was not recognised by 
our author. Attempts have been made to sup- 
port the latter inference by an appeal to other 
passages of his works; the full force of which 
can only be perceived, by viewing them in 
connexion with the subjects of which he is 
treating. 

We 4 have already noticed, and shall again 
have occasion to notice, TertuUian's sentiments 
respecting a second marriage. They who main- 

timony, L. iv. c. 3. Sect. 4. He assigns no reason for thus 
translating the words probati quique Setiiores. I am far 
from intending to say that the Presidents were not Bishops 
and Presbyters ; on the contrary, the followiug passage in 
the first Tract ad Uxorem, c. 7- when compared with 1 Tim. 
iii. 2. and Titus i. 6. appears to limit the Presidency to 
them. Quantum detrahant fidei, quantum obstrepant sanc- 
titati nuptiae secundae, disciplina Ecclesiae et praescriptio 
Apostoli declarat, quum digamos non sinit praesidere. 
Compare also de Idololatria, c. 7- with de Corona, e. 3. 
de Jejuniis, c. 17- with 1 Tim. v. 17- But Bingham ought 
surely to have explained why he affixed a sense to the words 
so foreign from their literal meaning ; especially as in another 
place, L. ii. c. 19- Sect. 19« he speaks of certain Seniores 
Ecclesiae, who were not of the Clergy, yet had some concern 
in the care of the Church. . 
4 Chap. I. p. 19- 



225 

tained its lawfulness, alleged the 5 passages in. 
the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, in which 
St. Paul enjoins that Bishops, Priests, and 
Deacons, shall be mas yuvaiKo? ivhpes-y — that is, 
according to the interpretation generally re- 
ceived in Tertullian's time, men who had been 
only once married. They contended, there- 
fore, that, as this restriction applied only to 
the Clergy, Laymen were at liberty to con- 
tract a second marriage. To evade this infer- 
ence, Tertullian has recourse to the following 
argument : 6 — " Do not," he says, "suppose that 

5 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12. Titus i. 6. Bishops and Priests who 
contracted a second marriage, were sometimes degraded. 
Usque adeo quosdam memini digamos loco dejectos. De 
Exhort. Castit. c. 7« Compare de Monogamia, c. 11. Our au- 
thor, however, complains that there was great laxity of dis- 
cipline on this point. Quot enim et digami president apud 
vos, insultantes utique Apostolo? De Monogamia, c. 12. 

6 De Exhort. Cast. c. 7« referred to in Chap. I. note 6. 
I now give the whole passage. " Vani erimus, si puta- 
verimus, quod Sacerdotibus non liceat, Laicis licere. Nonne 
et Laici Sacerdotes sumus? Scriptum est, Regnum quoque 
nos et Sacerdotes Deo et Patri suo fecit. Differentiam inter 
Ordinem et Plebem constituit Ecclesiae autoritas, et honor per 
Ordinis consessum sanctificatus. — (There is an ambiguity in 
the latter clause of this sentence, which must be differently 
translated, according as honor is referred to Ecclesioe or to 
Differentia inter Ordinem et Plebem. I have adopted the 
former sense, though by no means certain of its correctness. 
I conceive the allusion to be to the higher seats occupied by 
the Clergy, apart from the Laity, in the places of religious 
assembly. In the Tract de Fuga in Persecutione, c. 11. 
Tertullian makes a distinction between Christians majoris et 
minoris loci ; apparently meaning the Clergy by the former, 

P and 



226 

what is forbidden to the Clergy is allowed 
to the Laity. All Christians are priests, agree- 
ably to the words of St. John in the Book 
of Revelations— ' Christ has made us a king- 
dom and a priesthood to God and his Father.' 
The authority of the Church and its honor, 
which derives sanctity from the assembled 
Clergy, has established the distinction between 
the Clergy and Laity. In places where there 
are no Clergy, any single Christian may ex- 
ercise the functions of the priesthood, 7 may 
celebrate the eucharist, and baptise. But where 
three, though Laymen, are gathered together, 

and the Laity by the latter. So in the Tract de Baptismo, 
c. 17- Sed quanto magis Laicis disciplina verecundiae et 
modestiae incumbit, quum ea majoribus competant.) — Adeo ubi 
Ecclesiastici Ordinis non est consessus, et offers, et tinguis, 
et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet 
laici; unusquisque enim sua Jide vivit, nee est personarum 
acceptio apud Deum. Quoniam non auditores legis justi- 
ficabuntur a Deo, sed factores, secundum quod et Apo- 
stolus dicit. Igitur si habes jus sacerdotis in teraetipso, ubi 
necesse est, habeas oportet etiam disciplinam sacerdotis, 
ubi necesse sit habere jus sacerdotis. Digamus tinguis ? 
digamus offers ? quanto magis Laico digamo capitale est agere 
pro sacerdote, quum ipsi sacerdoti digamo facto auferatur 
agere sacerdotem ? Sed necessitati, inquis, indulgetur. Nulla 
necessitas excusatur, qua? potest non esse. Noli denique 
digamus deprehendi, et non committis in necessitatem adminis- 
trandi quod non licet digamo. Omnes nos Deus ita vult 
dispositos esse, ut ubique Sacramentis ejus obeundis apti 
simus. Bennet, in his Rights of the Clergy, &c. has bestowed 
a whole chapter on this passage. 

7 So the word offers must, I think, be translated in this 
passage. 



mi 

there is a Church. Every one lives by his- 
own faith, nor is there respect of persons ivith 
God; since not the hearers, but the doers, of 
the law are justified by God, according to 
the Apostle. If, therefore, you possess within 
yourself the right of the priesthood to be ex- 
ercised in cases of necessity, you ought also 
to conform yourself to the rule of life pre- 
scribed to those who engage in the priesthood ; 
the rights of which you may be called to ex- 
ercise. Do you, after contracting a second 
marriage, venture to baptise or to celebrate 
the eucharist? How much more heinous is it 
in a Layman who has contracted a second 
marriage, to exercise the functions of the priest- 
hood, when a second marriage is deemed a 
sufficient ground for degrading a priest from 
his order? But you w r ill plead the necessity 
of the case as an apology for the act. The 
plea is invalid, because you were not placed 
under the necessity of marrying a second time. 
Do not marry again, and you will not run 
the hazard of being obliged to do that which 
a Digamist is not allowed to do. It is the 
will of God that we should at all times be 
in a fit state to administer his sacraments, 
if an occasion should arise." — We are very 
far from meaning to defend the soundness 
of Tertullian's argument in this passage. We 

p 2 



228 

quote it because it is one of the passages 
which have been brought forward to prove 
that he did not recognise the distinction be- 
tween the Clergy and Laity ; whereas a directly 
opposite inference ought to be drawn. He 
limits the right of the Laity to exercise the 
ministerial functions to extraordinary cases ; to 
cases of necessity. Were they to assume it in 
ordinary cases, they would be guilty of an act 
of criminal presumption, 8 as he indirectly 
asserts in the Tract de Monogamia ; where he 
pursues the very same train of reasoning, in 
refutation of the same objection. That he 
recognised the distinction between the Clergy 
and Laity, is further proved by the fact, that 
among other accusations which he urges against 
the Heretics, he states that they conferred 
9 orders without making strict enquiry into the 

8 Sed quum extollimur et infiamur adversus Clerum, tunc 
unum omnes sumus : tunc omnes Sacerdotes, quia Sacerdotes 
nos Deo et Patri fecit ; quum ad pereequationem discipline 
sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas, et impares sumus. 
De Monogamia., c. 12. We may, however, infer from this pas- 
sage that in Tertullian's day the validity of the distinction 
was occasionally questioned. 

9 Ordinationes eorum temerariae, leves, inconstantes. Nunc 
neophytos conlocant, nunc seculo obstrictos, nunc Apostatas 
nostros. De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 41., and in the 
same chapter, Nam et Laicis sacerdotalia munera injungunt. 
In the Tract de Idololatria, c. 7- Tertullian complains that 
the artificers of idols were admitted into Orders ; Adleguntur 
in Ordinem Ecclesiasticum Artifices Idolorum. 



qualifications of the candidates ; and that they 
not only allowed, but even enjoined the Laity 
to assume the sacerdotal office, and administer 
the ceremonies of religion. In shewing that 
the distinction was recognised by Tertullian, 
we have incidentally shewn that it was gene- 
rally recognised in the Church ; this indeed 
is implied in the very words Clerus and Ordo 
Ecclesiasticus, which frequently occur. 

But what, it may be asked, is Tertullian's 
meaning, when he says that the distinction 
between the Clergy and the Laity is esta- 
blished by the authority of the Church? Be- 
fore we can answer this question, we must 
ascertain what was his notion of the Church; 
and for this purpose we will turn to the Tract 
de Praescriptione Hasreticorum, in which he 
takes a rapid survey of its origin and progress. 
10 « Christ," he says, " during his residence on 
earth, declared the purposes of his mission, 
and the rule of faith and practice, either pub- 
licly to the people or privately to the disciples, 
of whom he attached twelve more immediately 
to his person, intending that they should be 
the teachers of the Gentiles. One of them 

10 c. 20. Compare cc. 32, 36. Si haec ita se habent, ut 
Veritas nobis adjudicetur quicunque in ea regula incedimus 
quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis, Apostoli a Christo, Christus 
a Deo tradidit. c. 37. 



230 

betrayed him; but the remaining eleven he 
commanded to go and instruct all nations, and 
to baptise them in the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost. These eleven, having 
added to their number a twelfth, in the room 
of him who had been cut off, and having 
received the promised effusion of the Holy 
Spirit, by which they were endowed with 
supernatural powers, first preached the Gospel 
and founded Churches in Judea : they then 
went forth to the Gentiles, preaching in like 
manner and founding Churches in every city. 
From these Churches others were propagated 
and continue to be propagated at the present 
day, which are all reckoned in the number of 
Apostolic Churches, inasmuch as they are the 
offspring of Apostolic Churches. Moreover all 
these Churches constitute n one Church ; being 
joined together in the unity of faith and in 
the bond of peace." In conformity with this 
view of the origin of the Church, Tertullian 
never fails, when arguing upon any disputed 
point of doctrine or discipline, to appeal to 

11 On the Unity of the Church, see c. 32. and de Virgin, 
vel. c. 2. This Church Tertullian calls the house of God. 
De Pudicitia, c. 7- In it were preserved the authentic rule 
of faith and discipline, and the genuine Scriptures. De Pre- 
script. Haereticorum, cc. 21, 37- et passim. With respect to 
particular Churches, Tertullian admits by implication that 
they may fall into error, c. 27. 



231 

the belief or practice of those Churches which 
had been actually founded by the Apostles; 
on the ground that in them the faith taught 
and the institutions established by the Apostles 
were still preserved. When, therefore, he says 
that the authority of the Church made the 
distinction between the Clergy and Laity, the 
expression in his view of the subject is mani- 
festly equivalent to saying that the distinction 
may be traced to the Apostles, the founders 
of the Church. Thus he contends that 12 all 
virgins should be compelled to wear veils; 
because such was the practice in those Churches 
which had been founded either by the Apo- 
stles or by Apostolic men ; and consequently 
the probable inference was that it was of Apo- 
stolic institution. It is true that, after his sepa- 
ration from the Church, he held a different 
language. He then began to contend, 13 as we 
have already seen, that wherever three, though 
Laymen, were gathered together, there was 
a Church: and in 14 the Tract de Pudicitia, 

12 De Virginibus vel. c. 2. 

13 Chap. I. p. 48. 

14 Nam et Ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est Spi- 
ritus, in quo est Trinitas unius Divinitatis, Pater et Filius 
et Spiritus Sanctus. Mam Ecclesiam congregat, quam Domi- 
nus in tribus posuit. Atque ita exinde etiam numerus omnis 
qui in hanc fidem conspiraverint, Ecclesia ab auctore et 
consecratore censetur, et ideo Ecclesia quidem delicta dona- 
bit: sed Ecclesia Spiritus per Spiritalem hominem; non 
Ecclesia numerus Episcoporum, c 21. Compare de Pceni- 

tentia, 



232 

he says that any number of individuals, who 
meet together under the influence of the Spirit, 
constitute a Church ; which is not a number 
of Bishops, but is the Spirit itself acting 
through the instrumentality of a spiritual man 

(irvevfxariKO^ as opposed to ^i^ucos) — that is, of 

a man who believed in the revelations and 
prophecies of Montanus. 

At the same time that Tertullian bears tes- 
timony to the existence of a distinction between 
the Clergy and Laity, he bears testimony also 
to the existence of a distinction of orders among 
the Clergy. One of his charges against the He- 
retics is, that they neglected this distinction. 
15 " With them," he says, " one man is a Bishop 
to-day, another to-morrow : he who is to-day a 
Deacon, will be to-morrow a Reader; he who 

tentia, c. 10. In uno et altero Ecclesia est; Ecclesia vero 
Christus. De Fuga in Persecutione, c. 14. Sit tibi in tribus 
Ecclesia. Pamelius, as we observed in Chapter I. note 121, 
supposes without sufficient grounds that, in the Tract de 
Pudicitia, c. 21. by the three who were to constitute a 
Church, Tertullian meant Montanus and his two prophetesses. 
There is no necessity to invent absurdities for our author, 
who has to answer for so many of his own. Again in the 
Tract de Baptismo, c. 6. Quoniam ubi tres, id est, Pater 
et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia quae trium corpus 
est. 

15 Itaque alius hodie Episcopus, eras alius : hodie Diaco- 
nus, qui eras Lector : hodie Presbyter, qui eras Laicus. De 
Prescript. Hsereticorum, c. 41. 



is a Priest to-day, will to-morrow be a Layman." 
In the 16 Tracts de Baptismo and 17 de Fuga 
in Persecutione, the three orders of Bishops, 
Priests, and Deacons are enumerated together; 
and in the former the superior authority of 
the Bishop is expressly asserted. 

The episcopal office, according to Tertullian* 
was of Apostolic institution. In the 18 Tract 
de Prescription e Hasreticorum, he throws out 
the following challenge to the Heretics. " Let 
them shew," he says, "the origin of their 
Churches ; let them trace the succession of their 
Bishops, and thus connect the individual who 
first held the office, either with some Apostle, 
or some Apostolic man who always remained 
in communion with the Church. It is thus 
that the Apostolic Churches shew their origin. 
That of Smyrna traces its Bishops in an un- 
broken line from Poly carp, who was placed there 
by St. John : 19 that of Borne from Clemens, 



16 c. 17. 

17 c. 11. See also de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 3. 

18 c. 32. See also the Tract de Fuga in Persecutione, c. 13. 
Hanc Episcopatui formam Apostoli providentius condiderunt. 

19 Irenaeus, L. iii. c. 3. says that Linus was the first Bishop 
of Rome, Anacletus the second, and Clemens the third ; and 
that the Church of Rome was founded jointly by St. Peter 
and St. Paul. Bingham reconciles this difference by supposing 
that Linus and Anacletus died whilst St. Peter lived, and 

that 



234 

who was placed there by St. Peter : and every 
other Church can point out the individual to 
whom the superintendance of its doctrine and 
discipline was first committed by some one of 
the Apostles." The same statement is repeated 

20 in the fourth Book against Marcion. 

But how clearly soever the distinction be- 
tween the Bishops and the other orders of 
Clergy may be asserted in the writings of 
Tertullian, they afford us little assistance in 
ascertaining wherein this distinction consisted. 

21 In a passage to which we have just referred, 



that Clemens was also ordained their successor by St. Peter. 
L. ii. c. 1. Sect. 4. Had the works of Irenaeus and Ter- 
tullian proceeded from Semler's Roman Club, this apparent 
contradiction would probably have been avoided. 

20 c. 5. sub. in. Among other statements contained in 
the passage is the following: Habemus et Ioannis alumnas 
Ecclesias. Nam etsi Apocalypsin ejus Marcion respuit, or do 
tamen Episcoporam ad originem recensus in loannem stabii 
Anctorem. Sic et caeterarum (Ecclesiarum) generositas recog- 
noscitur. The words in Italics, Bingham has translated, " The 
Order of Bishops, when it is traced up to its original, will be 
found to have St. John for one of its authors." L. ii. c. 1. 
Sect. 3. We do not deny that this inference may be legiti- 
mately drawn from Tertullian's words. But by the expression 
Ordo Episcoporum, he did not mean the Order of Bishops, 
as distinct from Priests and Deacons, but the succession of 
Bishops in the Churches founded by St. John. 

21 See note 16- Dandi (baptismum) quidem habet jus 
summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus; dehinc Presbyteri 
et Diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate, propter 
Ecclesiee honorem. De Baptismo, c. 17- 



%35 

the right of the Priests and Deacons to bap- 
tise is said to be derived entirely from the 
authority of the Bishop ; who is styled Summus 
Sacerdos, the Supreme Priest. 22 Bingham says 
that Tertullian commonly gives to Bishops 
the title of presidents or provosts of the 
Church; but the passages to which he refers, 
scarcely bear him out in the assertion. 23 One 
of them we have already considered. 24 In 
another, Tertullian says that the communicants 
received the eucharist only from the hands of 
the presidents; and 25 in a third, that a diga- 
mist was not allowed to preside in the Church. 
But in neither case is it certain that Ter- 
tullian meant to speak exclusively of Bishops, 
since Priests might administer the sacraments ; 
and he 26 says that he had himself known in- 
stances of Priests who had been degraded for 
digamy. The Bishops doubtless presided when 
they were present: but in their absence the 
office devolved upon one of the presbyters, 

22 L. ii. c. 2. Sect. 5. 

23 In note 3 of this Chapter. The passage is in the 
Apology, c. 39- 

24 De Corona Militis, c. 3. Eucharistiae Sacramentum 
nee de aliorum manu quam de Praesidentium sumimus. 

25 Ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 7, also quoted in note 3. Quum 
digamos non sinit praesidere. 

2(5 De Exhort. Castit. c. 7, quoted in note 6". Quum ipsi 
Sacerdoti Digamo facto auferatur agere Sacerdotem, 



236 

27 The regulation of the internal ceconomy of 
each particular Church was certainly vested in 
the hands of the Bishop. 28 He appointed, for 
instance, days of fasting, whenever the circum- 
stances of the Church appeared to call for such 
marks of humiliation. 

The passages already alleged sufficiently 
prove that, in Tertullian's estimation, all 29 the 
Apostolic Churches were independent of each 
other, and equal in rank and authority. 30 He 
professes indeed a peculiar respect for the 
Church of Rome : not, however, because it 
was founded by St. Peter, but because both 
that Apostle and St. Paul there sealed their 
testimony to the Gospel with their blood, and 
St. John was there thrown into the cauldron 
of burning oil. 3l From a passage in the Tract 

27 De Virginibus velandis, c. Q. 

28 Bene autem quod et Episcopi universal plebi mandare 
jejunia assolent, non dico de industria stipium conferen- 
darum ut vestrae captures est, sed interdum et ex aliqua 
solicitudinis Ecclesiastical causa. De Jejuniis, c. IS. 

29 We have seen that in one sense our author called 
all orthodox Churches Apostolic. 

30 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 36. 

31 c. 21. De tua nunc sententia queero unde hoc jus 
Ecclesiae usurpas. Si quia dixerit Petro Dominus : Super 
hanc petram, &c. idcirco praesumis et ad te derivasse solvendi 
et alligandi potestatern, id est, ad omnem Ecclesiam Petri 
propinquam, qualis es evertens atque commutans manifestam 
Domini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro^ conferentem? 
Super te, inquit, aedificabo Ecclesiam meara, et dabo tibi 

claves, 



237 

de Pudicitia, it appears that the words of our 
Saviour to St. Peter — " On this rock I will 
build my Church," and "I will give unto thee 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven" — were 
not supposed at that time to refer exclusively 
to the Church of Rome ; but generally to all 
the Churches of which St. Peter was the 
founder. Tertullian himself contends that they 
were spoken by our Saviour with a personal 
reference to St. Peter, in whom they were 
afterwards fulfilled. "For he it was who first 
put the key into the lock, when he preached 
the Gospel to the assembled Israelites on the 
day of Pentecost. He it was, who opened to 
them the kingdom of heaven, by baptising 
them with the baptism of Christ; and thereby 
loosing them from the sins by which they had 
been bound; as he afterwards bound Ananias 
by inflicting upon him the punishment of death. 
He it was who, in the discussion at Jerusalem, 

claves, non Ecclesice ; et quaecunque solveris vel alligaveris, 
non quae solverint vel alligaverint. Sic enim et exitus docet. 
In ipso Ecclesia extructa est, id est, per ipsum : ipse clavem 
imbuit : vides quam — Viri Israelitce, auribus mandate qua 7 , 
dico : Iesum Nazarenum, virum a Deo vobis destinatum, et reliqua 
(Act. ii. 22.) Ipse denique primus in Christi baptismo reseravit 
aditum ccelestis regni, quo solvuntur alligata retro delicta, et 
alligantur quae non fuerint soluta secundum veram salutem, et 
Ananiam vinxit vinculo mortis, &c. Compare de Praescrip- 
tione Haereticorum, c. 22. Latuit aliquid Petrum aedificandae 
Ecclesiae petram dictum, claves regni ccelorum consecutum, et 
solvendi et alligandi in ccelis et in terris potestatem. 



238 

first declared that the yoke of circumcision 
ought not to be imposed on the necks of the 
Gentile brethren; thereby loosing them from 
the observance of the ceremonial, and binding 
them to the observance of the moral law." — 
There is, however, in the 32 Scorpiace a pas- 
sage in which Tertullian appears at first sight 
to admit that Christ had transmitted the power 
of the keys through Peter to his Church. 
Nam etsi adhuc clausum putas ccelum, me- 
mento claves ejus hie Dominum Petro, et per 
eum Ecclesige reliquisse, quas hie unusquisque 
interrogate atque confessus ferat secum. But 
the concluding words shew his meaning to 
have been, not that the power of the keys 
was transmitted to the Church as a Society; 
but to each individual member who confessed, 
like St. Peter, that Jesus was Christ, the Son 
of the living God : or as he expresses him- 
self in the 33 Tract de Pudicitia, to the spiritual 
Church of Montanus. For the Scorpiace was, 
as we have seen, written after he had recog- 
nised the divine inspiration of Montanus ; 
though probably before he actually seceded 
from the Church. 

In opposition to the opinion above expressed 

32 c 10. 

33 See the passage quoted in note 14 of this Chapter. 



respecting the independence of the Christian 
Churches, a passage 34 has been quoted, from 
which it is inferred that even at that early- 
period, the Bishop of Rome had assumed to 
himself the titles of Pontifex Maximus and 
Episcopus Episcoporum. 35 Allix indeed affirms 
that our author is speaking of an edict pro- 
mulgated, not by the Roman Pontiff, but by 
the Bishop of Carthage. In the remarks pre- 
fixed to the opinions delivered by the Bishops 
at the council of Carthage on the subject of 
Heretical baptism, Cyprian asserts the perfect 
equality of all Bishops, and uses the following 
remarkable expressions — " Neque enim quis- 
quam nostrum Episcopum se Episcoporum 
constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi 
necessitatem collegas suos adigit." That this 
remark is aimed at some Bishop who had called 
himself Episcopus Episcoporum, cannot, we 
think, be doubted. The majority of writers 
apply it to Stephen, Bishop of Rome ; from 
w r hom Cyprian differed on the point in question. 
Allix, on the other hand, supposes that Cyprian 
having Tertullian's words in his mind, alluded 



34 Audio etiam edictum esse propositum, et quidem 
peremptoriura, Pontifex scilicet Maximus, Episcopus Epis- 
coporum dicit— " Ego et mcechia? et fornicationis delicta poeni- 
tentia functis dimitto." De Pudicitia, c. 1. 

35 c. 8. 



240 

to the pretensions of his predecessor in the 
See of Carthage; for the express purpose of 
disclaiming them. He infers also, from a pas- 
sage in a 56 Letter of Cyprian to Antonianus, 
that the controversy respecting the re-admis- 
sion of adulterers to the communion of the 
Church was confined to Africa, and that the 
Roman Pontiff took no share in it. The state- 
ments of both parties in this question must 
be received with some degree of caution : for 
each writes with a view to a particular object. 
The Romanists contend that, although Ter- 
tullian, then a Montanist, denied the supre- 
macy of the Roman Pontiffs, his words prove 
that it was openly asserted by them in his 
day— an inference, which Allix was naturally 
anxious to controvert, since he maintained that 
the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome did 
not at that period extend beyond the limits 
of their own diocese. With respect to the 
titles then given to Bishops, we may observe 
that ~ 7 Bingham has produced instances of the 
application of the title, Summi Pontifices, to 
ordinary Bishops. 

36 Ep. 55. Ed. Fell. Et quidem apud antecessors nostros 
quidam de Episcopis istic in Provincia nostra dandam pacem 
mcechis non putaverunt, et in totum pcenitentiae locum contra 
adulteria clauserunt. 

3 * L. ir. c. 3. Sect. 6. 



241 

The word Papa occurs in the 38 Tract de 
Pudicitia, and being coupled with the epithet 
benedictus, is generally supposed to mean a 
Bishop; and according to the 59 Romanists, the 
Bishop of Rome. But whatever may be its 
meaning in this particular passage, it is certain 
that the 40 title of Papa was at that period 
given to Bishops in general. After Tertul- 
Han's secession from the Church, his respect 
for the episcopal office, or rather perhaps for 
the individuals who were in his day appointed 
to it, appears to have undergone a consider- 
able diminution. 41 He insinuates that they 
were actuated by worldly motives ; and ascribes 
to their anxiety to retain their power and 
emoluments a practice, which had been intro- 
duced into some Churches, of levying contri- 
butions upon the members, for the purpose of 
bribing the governors and military to connive 
at the religious meetings of the Christians. 

38 Bonus Pastor et benedictus Papa concionaris, c. 13. 

39 The Romanists cite the following words from the Tract 
de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 30, in confirmation of their 
interpretation. Sub Episcopatu Eleutherii benedicti. 

40 See Cyprian's works. Cler. Rom. ad Cler. Carthag. 
Epp. 8. 23. 31. 36. 

41 Hanc Episcopatui formam Apostoli providentius con- 
diderunt, ut regno suo securi frui possent sub obtentu pro- 
curandi : scilicet enim talem pacem Christus ad Patrem regre- 
diens mandavit a militibus per Saturnalitia redimendam. 
De Fuga in Persecutione, c. 13. 

Q 



242 

Besides Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, Ter- 
tullian mentions an order of Readers, 42 Lectores. 
whose office it was to read the Scriptures to 
the people. He speaks also of an order of 
Widows; and 45 complains that a Bishop, in 
direct violation of the discipline of the Church, 
had admitted into that order a Virgin who had 
not attained her twentieth year. The third 
Book of the Apostolic Constitutions is entitled 
irepl yripuv — and it is there directed, in confor- 
mity to the injunction of 44 St. Paul, that no 
Widow shall be appointed who has not attained 
the age [ of sixty : 45 she was moreover to have 
been only once married — a restriction also 
founded on St. Paul's injunction. Widows 

42 Hodie Diaconus, qui eras Lector. De Prescript. 
Haeret. c. 41. See Bingham, L. iii. c. 5. 

43 Plane scio alicubi Virginem in Viduatu ab annis nondum 
viginti collocatam ; cui si quid refrigerii debuerat Episcopus, 
aliter utique salvo respectu discipline prsestare potuisset. 
De Virginibus vel. c. 9- See also de Monogamia, c. 16. 
Habet Viduam utique, quam adsumat licebit ; and de Exhor- 
tatione Castitatis, c. 12. Habe aliquam uxorem spiritalem, 
adsume de Viduis. 

44 1 Tim. v. S to 11. Titus ii. 3. 

45 So Tertullian ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 7« Quum Viduam 
allegi in ordinem nisi univiram non concedit ; and de Mono- 
gamia, c. 11. sub in. De Virginibus vel. c 9- Ad quam 
sedem prater annos sexaginta non tantum univirse, id est, 
nuptse, aliquando eliguntur, sed et matres et quidem educa- 
trices filiorum : scilicet, ut experimentis omnium affectuum 
structse facile norint cseteras et consilio et solatio juvare, 
et ut nihilominus ea decucurrerint, per quae fcemina probari 
potest. 



243 

who had brought up families appear to 
have been preferred ; because their experience 
in the different affections of the human heart 
rendered them fitter to give counsel and con- 
solation to others, and because they had passed 
through all the trials by which female virtue 
can be proved. The duty of the Widows con- 
sisted in administering to the wants of the 
poor; in attending upon the sick; in instruct- 
ing the younger females of the community, 
in watching over their conduct and framing 
their morals. 46 They were not allowed to per- 
form any of the ministerial functions ; to speak 
in the Church, to teach, to baptise, &c. They 
were maintained out of the common stock, and 
had a higher place allotted them in the pub- 
lic assemblies. St. Paul appears to speak of 
Widows in the strict sense of the word: sub- 
sequently the name was given to females 47 who 
had led a life of celibacy, and generally to 

4(5 Non permittitur mulieri in ecclesid loqui, (1 Cor. xiv. 34.) 
sed nee docere, nee tinguere, nee offerre, nee ullius virilis 
muneris, nedum sacerdotalis officii sortem sibi vindicare. De 
Virgin, vel. c. g. One of Tertullian's charges against the 
Heretics is, that they allowed their females to perform these 
various acts. De Praescriptione Haeretic. c. 41. Compare 
de Baptismo, c. 1. sub fine, c. 17- Females, however, might 
prophesy, agreeably to St. Paul's direction, 1 Cor. xi. 5. 
Caeterum prophetandi jus et illas habere jam ostendit, quum 
mulieri etiam prophetanti velamen imponit. Adv. Mar- 
cionem, L. v. c. 8. 

47 Ignatius ad Smyrnaeos, sub fine. 

q2 



C 2U 

the order of Deaconesses. According to ^Ham- 
mond there were two sorts of x^P aL — tna ^ ls > 
as he translates the word, lone women — Dea- 
conesses, who were for the most part unmar- 
ried females ; and Widows properly so called, 
who being childless and helpless, were main- 
tained by the Church : he supposes St. Paul 
to speak of the latter. 49 Suicer on the con- 
trary says, that the Deaconesses were originally 
Widows ; and that the admission of unmarried 
females was of a subsequent date. The reader 
will find in 50 Bingham all the information 
which Ecclesiastical antiquity supplies on the 
subject. 

In addition to the notices which may be 
collected from the writings of Tertullian respect- 
ing the constitution of each particular Church 
and the distinction of orders in it, 51 we learn 
from them that Synods were in his time held 
in Greece, composed of deputies from all the 

48 Note on 1 Tim. v. 3. 

49 Sub VOCe hiaxovivcra. 

50 L. ii. c. 22. 

31 Aguntur praeterea per Graecias ilia certis in locis con- 
cilia ex unwersis Ecclesiis, per quae et altiora quaeque in com- 
mune tractantur, et ipsa repraesentatio totius nominis Christiani 
magna, veneratione celebratur. — Conventus autem illi, sta- 
tionibus prius et jejunationibus operati, dolere cum dolenti- 
bus, et ita demum congaudere gaudentibus norunt. De Je- 
j,uniis, c. 13. 



245 

Churches; who might be considered as repre- 
senting the whole body of Christians dispersed 
throughout Greece. These meetings were 
always preceded by solemn fasts, and opened 
with prayer. In them all 52 the more important 
questions which arose from time to time were 
discussed; and thus the unity of doctrine and 
discipline was preserved. Baronius supposes 
that Tertullian alludes to particular councils 
which were convened at that time by Zephyri- 
nus, bishop of Home, for the purpose of con- 
demning the Montanists ; others suppose that 
he alludes to councils held by the Montanists 
themselves — a supposition which in my opinion 
is at variance with the whole context. He 
appears to me to speak without reference to 
any particular council, and to describe a gene- 
ral custom. 

As the converts from Heathenism, 55 to use 
Tertullian's expression, were not born, but 
became Christians, they went through a course 
of instruction in the principles and doctrines of 
the Gospel, and were subjected to a strict 
probation, before they were admitted to the 

52 For instance, it was determined in these councils 
what writings were, and what were not, to be received as 
.genuine parts of Scripture. De Pudicitia, c. 10. 



53 



Fiunt, non nascuntur, Christiani. Apology, c. 18. 



246 

rite of baptism. In this stage of their pro- 
gress they were called Catechumens ; of whom, 
according to 54 Suicer, there were two classes — 
one called Audientes, who had only entered 
upon their course, and begun to hear the word 
of God — the other awaiTovvTes, or competentes, 
who had made such advances in Christian 
knowledge and practice as to be qualified to 
appear at the font. Tertullian, however, ap- 
pears either not to have known or to have 
neglected this distinction ; since he applies 55 the 
names of Audientes and Auditores indiffer- 
ently to all who had not partaken of the 
rite of baptism. When the Catechumens had 
given full proof of the ripeness of their know- 
ledge and of the stedfastness of their faith, they 
were baptised, admitted to the table of the 

54 Sub VOCe Karrj-^ov/jievoi. 

55 An alius est Intinctis Christus, alius Audientibus ? And 
again, Itaque Audientes optare Intinctionem, non praesumere 
oportet. De Pcenitentia, c. 6. In the same chapter Tertullian 
speaks of the Auditorum tyrocinia, and applies the title of 
Novitioli to the Catechumens. In the Tract de Idololatria, 
c. 24. we find the following distinction. Haec accedentibus ad 

Jidem proponenda, et ingredientibus in Jidem inculcanda est; 
and the following in the Tract de Spectaculis, c. 1. Cog- 
noscite, qui quum maxime ad Deum acceditis, recognoscite, 
qui jam accessisse vos testificati et confessi estis. In the 
Tract de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 14. our author dis- 
tinguishes between Doctores and Quaerentes. Est utique 
frater aliquis doctor, gratia scientiae donatus: est aliquis 
inter exercitatos conversatus; aliquis tecum, curiosius tamen, 
quaerens. 



247 

Lord, and styled 36 Fideles. The importance, 
which Tertullian attached to this previous pro- 
bation of the candidates for baptism, appears 
from the fact that he founds upon the ne- 
glect of it one of his charges against the Here- 
tics. 57 "Among them," he says, " no distinction 
is made between the Catechumen and the 
faithful or confirmed Christian : the Catechu- 
men is pronounced fit for baptism before he 
is instructed ; all come in indiscriminately ; all 
hear, all pray together." 

The teachers, who undertook to prepare 
the Catechumens for reception at the baptis- 
mal font, appear to have pursued the course 
pointed out by the Baptist, and by our blessed 
Lord. 58 They began by insisting on the ne- 
cessity of repentance and amendment of life. 
Unfortunately the effect of their exhortations 
upon the minds of their hearers was fre- 



56 Sometimes, however, the word Fideles included also 
the Catechumens. Thus in the Tract de Corona, c. 2. Nemi- 
nem dico Fidelium coronam capite nosse alias, extra tempus 
tentationis ejusmodi. Omnes ita observant a Catechumenis 
usque ad Confessores et Martyres, vel Negatores. 

57 Inprimis quis Catechumenus, quis Fidelis, incertum est : 
pariter adeunt, pariter audiunt, pariter grant. And again, 
Ante sunt perfecti Catechumeni quam edocti. De Praescript. 
Haeretic. c. 41. 

58 See the first five chapters of the Tract de Pceni- 
tentia* 



248 

quently counteracted by 59 a fatal perversion of 
the doctrine of the Church respecting the effi- 
cacy of baptism. In every age the object of 
a large portion of those who call themselves 
Christians has been, to secure the benefits 
without fulfilling the conditions of the Chris- 
tian covenant — to obtain the rewards of right- 
eousness without sacrificing their present gra- 
tifications.- When, therefore, the proselyte was 
told, that baptism conferred upon him who 
received it the remission of all his former sins, 
he persuaded himself that he might with 
safety defer the work of repentance; and 
passed the time allotted for his probation, not 
in mortifying his lusts and acquiring a purity 
of heart and affections suitable to his Chris- 
tian profession ; but in a more unrestrained 
enjoyment of those worldly and sensual plea- 
sures, in which he knew that, after baptism, 
he could not indulge, without forfeiting his 
hopes of eternal happiness. So general had 
this licentious practice become, that Tertul- 
lian devotes a considerable portion of the 

59 Tertullian in the following sentence explains the preva- 
lent opinion, at the same time that he points out the 
qualifications necessary to render baptism efficacious. Ne- 
que ego renuo divinum beneficium, id est, abolitionem 
delictorum, inituris aquam omnimodo salvum esse; sed ut 
eo pervenire contingat elaborandum est. Quis enim tibi, tarn 
infida? posnitentias viro, asperginem unam cujuslibet aquae 
commodabit ? De Poenitentia, c. 6. 



249 

w Tract de Pcenitentia to the exposure of its 
folly and wickedness; and the "historian of 
the Roman empire might there have found 
better arguments, than those which he has 
extracted from Chrysostom, against the delay 
of baptism ; though our author's attention was 
not immediately directed to that subject. 

While the teacher was endeavouring to 
impress upon the Catechumen the necessity 
of repentance and amendment of life, he would 
at the same time gradually unfold the great 
truths which constitute the objects of a Chris- 
tian faith ; suiting his instructions to the com- 
prehension and previous acquirements of the 
proselyte, and proceeding from the simpler to 
the more sublime and mysterious doctrines of 
the Gospel. Of some the communication was 
postponed until the convert had been bap- 
tised, and numbered among the members of 
the Church. But after that rite was confer- 
red, there was no further reserve; and the 
whole counsel of God was declared alike to 

60 See particularly c. 6. where Tertullian argues that 
baptism, in order to be effectual to the pardon of sin, pre- 
supposes a renunciation of all sinful habits on the part of 
him who is to receive it. Men are admitted to baptism 
because they have already repented and reformed their lives; 
not in order that they may afterwards repent and reform. 
Non ioleo abluimur ut delinquere desinamus, sed quia desiimus. 

61 Chap. xx. note 68. 



250 

all the faithful. 62 In our account of Monta- 
nus, we stated that part of that knowledge, 
yvuxiLs, which, according to Clemens Alexan- 
drinus, had been communicated by the Apo- 
stles to a select few, and through them 
handed down to his own time by oral tra- 
dition, consisted of mystical interpretations of 
Scripture. We find occasionally, in 65 Tertul- 
lian's works, expressions implying that he also 
admitted the existence of interpretations, the 
knowledge of which was confined to those 
whom he terms the more worthy. But he 
condemns, in the most pointed manner, the 
notion, that the Apostles had kept back any 
of the truths revealed to them, and had not 
imparted them alike to all Christians. 64 He 
applies to it the name of madness, and con- 
siders it as a pure invention of the Gnostics ; 
devised for the purpose of throwing an air 

02 Chapter I. p. 34. 

63 Thus in the Tract de Pallio, where he is speaking of 
the expulsion of our first parents from Paradise, and of 
the fig-leaves of which they made aprons ; he adds, sed 
arcana ista, nee omnium nosse, c. 3. and in the Tract de 
Idololatria, speaking of the brazen serpent set up by Moses 
in the wilderness, he says, Sive quae alia figurae istius 
expositio dignioribus revelata est, c 5. 

64 Sed ut diximus, eadem dementia est, quum confitentur 
quidem nihil Apostolos ignorasse, nee diversa inter se prae- 
dicasse ; non tamen omnia volunt illos omnibus revelasse : 
queedam enim palam et universis, quaedam secreto et paucis 
demandasse. De Proescriptione Haeretic. c. 25. See also c. 26. 



251 

of mysterious grandeur around their monstrous . 
fictions, and supported by the grossest mis- 
representations of Scripture. Having already 
delivered our opinion respecting the mischiev- 
ous consequences which have arisen to the 
Church, from the countenance lent by the 
writings of Clemens Alexandrinus to the no- 
tion of a Disciplina Arcani — we shall now 
only express our regret that Protestant divines, 
in their eagerness to establish a favourite 
point, should sometimes have been induced to 
resort to it. 

In 65 the passage already cited from the 
Apology, Tertullian states one purpose of the 
Christian assemblies to have been the main- 
tenance of discipline by pronouncing censures, 
according to the circumstances of the offence, 
against those who had erred either in prac- 
tice or in doctrine. 66 We have seen that 
the proselyte, before he was admitted to the 
baptismal font, was subjected to a strict pro- 
bation. 67 In baptism he received the remis- 
sion of all his former transgressions, and 

65 See p. 223. The sentence was pronounced by the 
President. Quomodo ut auferatur de medio illorum ? Non 
utique ut extra Ecclesiam detur ; hoc enim non a Deo 
postularetur quod erat in Praesidentis officio. De Pudicitia, 
c. 14. 

66 p. 245. 6 ? See the Tract de Pcenitentia, cc, 7, 9, 



252 

solemnly renounced all his former carnal de- 
sires and impure habits. If, however, through 
the weakness of human nature and the arts 
of his spiritual adversary, he was afterwards 
betrayed into sin, the door of mercy w T as 
not closed against him ; he might still be 
restored to the favour of God and of the 
Church, by making a public confession of his 
guilt. It was not sufficient that the unhappy 
offender felt the deepest remorse, and that his 
peace of mind was destroyed* by the remem- 
brance of his transgression : — he was required 
to express his contrition by some public acts, 
which might at once satisfy the Church of his 
sincerity, and deter others from similar trans- 
gressions. The name given to this public con- 
fession of guilt was Exomologesis ; and it con- 
sisted in various external marks of humiliation. 
68 The penitent was clothed in the meanest 
apparel — he lay in sackcloth and ashes — he 
either fasted entirely, or lived upon bread and 
water — he passed whole days and nights in 
tears and lamentations — he embraced the knees 
of the presbyters as they entered the Church, 
and entreated the brethren to intercede by 
their prayers in his behalf. In this state of 
degradation and exclusion from the commu- 

68 Compare cle Piidicitia, c. 5. sub fine. c. 13. Et tu qui- 
dem pcenitentiam moechi ad exorandam fraternitatem, &c. 



253 

nion of the faithful he remained a longer or . 
a shorter period, according to the magnitude 
of his offence: when that period was expired, 
the 69 bishop publicly pronounced his absolu- 
tion, by which he was restored to the favour 
of God and to the communion of the Church. 
Such is the account given by Tertullian of 
the Exomologesis, or public confession en- 
joined by the Church for sins committed 
after baptism. 70 Its benefits could be ob- 
tained only once : if the penitent relapsed, a 
place of repentance was no longer open to 
him. Although, however, he could not be 
reconciled to the Church in this world, we 
must not infer that Tertullian intended to 
exclude him from all hope of pardon in the 
next. 71 They indeed who, through false shame 
or an unwillingness to submit to the penance 
enjoined them, desperately refused to reconcile 
themselves to the Church by making a pub- 
lic confession, would be consigned to eternal 

69 See the passage quoted from the Tract de Pudicitia, 
c. 13. in note 6*5. and c. 18. sub fine. Salva ilia pcenitentia? 
specie post Fidem, quae aut levioribus delictis veniara ab 
Episcopo consequi poterit, aut majoribus et irremissibilibus 
a Deo solo. 

70 Collocavit in vestibulo pcenitentiam secundam, quae 
pulsantibus patefaciatj sed jam semel, quia jam secundo; 
sed amplius nunquam, quia proxime frustra. De Pceniten- 
tia, c. 7- See also c. 9. 

71 De Pcenitentia, cc. 10, 11, 12. 



254 

misery. 72 But our author expressly distin- 
guishes between remission of sins by the 
Church and by God: and affirms that the 
sincere penitent, though he may not by his 
tears and lamentations obtain re-admission into 
the Church, may yet secure his reception into 
the kingdom of heaven. 

In 75 our attempts to distinguish between 
the works composed by Tertullian before and 
after his adoption of the opinions of Mon- 
tanus, we remarked that the Tract de Pceni- 
tentia belonged to the former class ; and that 
he 74 there spoke as if all crimes, committed 
after baptism, might once, though only once, 
be pardoned upon repentance. But in the 
Tract de Pudicitia, which was written after 

72 See de Pudicitia, c. 3. Et si pacem hie non metit, apud 
Dominum seminat. Tertullian reasons throughout the Tract 
on the supposition that the more heinous offences, majora de- 
licta, can be pardoned by God alone. See cc. 11, 18. sub fine. 

73 See chap. I. p. 45. 

74 See particularly the commencement of c. 8. But at 
other times Tertullian speaks as if idolaters, apostates, and 
murderers were never re-admitted to the communion of the 
Church. De Pudicitia, cc. 5, 9, 12. sub fine. Hinc est quod 
neque Idololatriae neque sanguini pax ab Ecclesiis redditur. 
Crimes against nature were also under the same irremissible 
sentence of exclusion. Reliquas autem libidinum furias impias 
et in corpora et in sexus ultra jura naturae, non modo 
limine, verum omni Ecclesiae tecto submovemus; quia non 
sunt delicta, sed monstra. c. 4. See Bingham, L. xviii. c. 4, 
L. xvi. c. 10. Sect. 2, 



255 

he had seceded from the Church, we 75 find 
him drawing a distinction between greater and 
less offences — between those which could not, 
and those which could be pardoned by the 
Church. If, 76 for instance, a Christian had 
been excommunicated for being present at a 
chariot race, or a combat of gladiators, or a dra- 
matic representation, or any gymnastic exer- 
cise ; for attending any secular game or 
entertainment, or working at any trade which 
ministered to the purposes of idolatry, or 
using any expression which might be con- 
strued into a denial of his faith or into blas- 
phemy against Christ — or if from passion or 
impatience of censure he had himself broken 
off his connexion with the Church — still his 
guilt was not of so deep a dye, but that he 

75 De Pudicitia, cc. 1, 2. Secundum hanc differentiam de- 
lictorum pcenitentiae quoque conditio discriminatur. Alia erit, 
quae veniam consequi possit, in delicto scilicet remissibili ; alia 
quae consequi nullo modo potest, in delicto scilicet irre- 
missibili. c. 18. sub T fine. Haec ut principalia penes Dominum 
delicta. De Patientia., c. 5. 

76 Ita licet dici perisse quod salvum est. Perit igitur et 
fidelis elapsus in spectaculum quadrigarii furoris, et gladiato- 
rii cruoris, et scenicae fceditatis, et xysticae vanitatis, in lusus, 
in convivia secularis solennitatis ; in officium, in ministerium 
alienae idololatriae aliquas artes adhibuit curiositatis ; in verbum 
ancipitis negationis aut blasphemiae impegit; ob tale quid 
extra gregem datus est, vel et ipse forte ira, tumore, aemu- 
latione, quod denique saepe fit dedignatione castigationis 
abrupit; debet requiri atque revocari. De Pudicitia, c. 7- 



256 

might, upon his public confession, be again 
received into its communion. , 77 In a subse- 
quent passage he classes among the venial sins, 
being angry without a cause, and allowing 
the sun to go down upon our wrath — acts of 
violence — evil-speaking — rash swearing — non- 
performance of contracts — violations of truth ; 
and among the heinous sins, homicide, idola- 
try, fraud, denial of Christ, blasphemy, adul- 
tery, and fornication. Of these he says that 
there is no remission; and that even Christ 
will not intercede for those who commit 
them. Such were the severe notions of disci- 
pline entertained by Tertullian after he be- 
came a Montanist. In his Tract de Pudicitia 

77 Cui enim non accidit aut irasci inique et ultra solis 
occasum, aut et manum immittere, aut facile maledicere, aut 
temere jurare, aut fidem pacti destruere, aut verecundia aut 
necessitate mentiri? in negotiis, in officiis, in quaestu, in 
victu, in visu, in auditu quanta tentamur ! ut si nulla 
sit venia istorum, nemini salus competat. Horum ergo erit 
venia per exoratorem Patris, Christum. Sunt autem et con- 
traria istis, ut graviora et exitiosa^ qua? veniam non capi- 
ant, homicidium,, idolol atria, fraus, negatio, blasphemia, uti- 
que et moechia et fornicatio, et si qua alia violatio templi 
Dei. Horum ultra exorator non erit Christus. c. 1Q> In 
the fourth book against Marcion, the enumeration of the 
delicta majora is somewhat different. Quae septem maculis 
capitalium delictorum inhorrerent, idololatria, blasphemia, 
homicidio, adulterio, stupro, falso testimonio, fraude. c. 9« 
On other occasions Tertullian appears to overlook the distinc- 
tion between greater and lesser offences. Quum — omne 
delictum voluntarium in Domino grande sit. Ad Uxorem, 
L. ii. c. 3. 



257 

he applies them to adulterers and fornicators 
in particular, and 78 even extends them to 
those who contract a second marriage; brand- 
ing 79 the orthodox, who recommended a milder 
course, with the name of y^vyiKoi, Animales — 
that is, men possessing indeed the Anima 
which God breathed into Adam, thereby con- 
stituting him a living soul, but strangers to 
the influence of that Spirit by which the dis- 
ciples of the Paraclete were inspired. 

We may take this opportunity of observ- 
ing, that Tertullian's works contain no allusion 
to the practice of Auricular Confession. 

At the end of the chapter on the Go- 
vernment of the Church, Mosheim gives a 
short account of the Ecclesiastical Authors, who 
flourished during the century of which he is 
treating. The notices which the writings of 
Tertullian supply on this point are very few 

78 Et ideo durissime nos, infamantes Paracletum disciplinae 
enormitate, Digamos foris sistimus, eundem limitem liminis 
mcechis quoque et fornicatoribus figimus, jejunas pacis lachry- 
mas profusuris, nee amplius ab Ecclesia quam publicationem 
dedecoris relaturis. De Pudicitia, c. 1. sub fine. 

79 See Chap. I. note 46. The Tract de Pudicitia was 
directed against an edict, published by a bishop (probably 
of Rome) and allowing adulterers and fornicators to be re-, 
admitted to the communion of the Church upon repentance. 
See p. 239- 

R 



258 

in number. 80 He alludes to the Shepherd of 
Hernias in a manner which shews that it was 
highly esteemed in the Church, and even 
deemed by some of authority ; for he sup- 
poses that a practice, which appears to have 
prevailed in his day, of sitting down after 
the conclusion of the public prayers, owed its 
origin to a misinterpretation of a passage in 
that work. In his later writings, when he 
had adopted the rigid notions of Montanus 
respecting the perpetual exclusion of adulterers 
from the communion of the Church, 81 he 
speaks with great bitterness of the Shepherd 
of Hermas, as countenancing adultery; and 
states that it had been pronounced apocry- 
phal by every synod of the orthodox Churches. 
82 Yet the opinions expressed in the Treatise 
de Pcenitentia, written before Tertullian be- 
came a Montanist, appear to bear something 
more than an accidental resemblance to those 
contained in the Shepherd of Hermas. 

80 De Oratione, c. 12. 

81 Sed cederem tibi, si Scriptura Pastoris, qua? sola 
mcechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset incidi; si non 
ab omni Concilio Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum inter Apo- 
crypha et falsa judicaretur ; adultera et ipsa et inde pa- 
trona sociorum. De Pudicitia, c. 10. Again, in c. 20. Illo 
Apocrypho Pastore moechorum. 

82 Compare de Pcenitentia, cc. 7, 8, 9. with the Shepherd 
of Hernias, Mand. iv. c. 3. 



259 

We 83 have seen that Tertullian mentions 
Clemens Romanus as having been placed in 
the see of Rome, by St. Peter ; and Polycarp 
in that of Smyrna, by St. John. 

In 84 speaking of the authors who had re- 
futed the Valentinian heresy, he mentions 
Justin, 83 Miltiades, and Irenaeus. To them he 
adds Proculus, supposed by some eminent cri- 
tics to be the same as Proclus ; who is stated 
86 by the author of the brief Enumeration 
of Heretics, subjoined to Tertullian's Treatise 
de Prsescriptione Haereticorum, to have been 
the head of one of the two sects into which 
the Cataphrygians or Montanists were divided. 
He appears to have made a distinction be- 
tween the Holy Ghost and the Paraclete ; 
the former inspired the apostles; the latter 
spoke in Montanus, and revealed through him 
more numerous and more sublime truths than 
Christ had delivered in the Gospel. Proclus 
did not, however, like JEschines, the head of 
the other division of the Cataphrygians, con- 
found the Father and the Son. 87 Eusebius, 

83 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 32. quoted in p. 233. 

84 Adversus Valentinianos, c. 5. 

85 See Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. L. v. c. 17. 

86 c. 52. 

87 Eccl. Hist. L. vi. c. 20. 

K 2 



260 

and after him 88 Jerome and 89 Photius, men- 
tion a Proclus or Proculus, who was a leader 
of the sect of Cataphrygians, and held a dis- 
putation at Rome with Caius, a distinguished 
writer of that day. There is, therefore, no 
doubt, as 90 Lardner justly observes, that a 
Montanist of the name of Proculus or Pro- 
clus lived at the beginning of the third cen- 
tury ; but whether he was the author men- 
tioned by Tertullian has been doubted: the 
expression Proculus noster, which is applied 
to him, inclines me to think that he was. 
Tertullian 91 speaks of Tatian as one of the 
heretics who enjoined abstinence from food; 
on the ground that the Creator of this world 
was a Being at variance with the Supreme 
God, and that it was consequently sinful to 
partake of any enjoyments which this world 
affords. 

From the manner in which Tertullian 
92 speaks of the visions seen by the Martyr 
Perpetua, I infer that a written account of 

88 Catalogus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum. Caius. 

89 Bibliotheca, Cod. 48. 

90 Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 40. 

91 De Jejuniis, c. 15. 

92 De Anima, c 55. Quomodo Perpetua, fortissima Mar- 
tyr, sub die passionis in revelatione Paradisi, solos illic 
commartyres suos vidit? 



261 

her martyrdom had been circulated among the 
Christians. 95 Some have supposed that Tertul- 
lian was himself the author of the account 
still extant of the Passion of Perpetua and 
Felicitas. 

93 Lardner, Credibility, c. 40. 



CHAP. V. 

ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH. 



We now come to a more important and 
more extensive branch of our enquiries; to 
the information which the writings of Ter- 
tullian supply respecting the doctrine of the 
Church in his day. In treating this part of 
our subject, we do not think that we can 
adopt a better course, than to consider the 
different doctrines in the order in which they 
occur in the Articles of the Church of Eng- 
land. For the present, however, we shall pass 
over the first and second articles, which re- 
late to the Trinity and to the person and offices 
of Christ; because a more convenient oppor- 
tunity for considering them will present itself, 
when we come to the last of Mosheim's 
divisions — the heresies which disturbed the 
peace of the Church during the latter part 
of the second, and the earlier part of the 
third century. With respect to that por- 
tion of the first article which asserts the 
unity of God and describes his nature and 



263 

attributes, the reader will find a statement of 
Tertullian's faith * in a passage already quoted 
from the seventeenth chapter of the Apology. 

Let us, therefore, proceed to the third 
article; the subject of which is Christ's de- 
scent into hell. 

In order to put the reader in possession 
of our author's opinion on this article, it is 
necessary to premise that he speaks of four 
different places of future happiness or misery — 
the Inferi, Abraham's Bosom, Paradise, and 
Gehenna. 

The 2 Inferi he defines to be a deep and 
vast recess in the very heart and bowels of the 
earth. 3 He sometimes distinguishes between 
the Inferi and Abraham's Bosom; 4 at others, 

1 See Chap. III. note xi. 

2 Nobis Inferi, non nuda cavositas nee subdivalis aliqua 
mundi sentina creduntur; sed in fossa terras, et in alto vastitas, 
et in ipsis visceribus ejus abstrusa profunditas. De Ani- 
ma, c. 55. 

3 Aliud enim Inferi, ut puto, aliud quoque Abraham sinus. 
Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 34. 

4 Caeterum vester Christus pristinum statum Judaeis pollice- 
tur ex restitutione terrae ; et post decursum vitae, apud Inferos, 
in sinu Abrahae, refrigerium. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 24. 
This passage applies to the peculiar notions of Marcion. See 
note xi. of this Chapter. Igitur si quid tormenti sive solatii 

anima 



264 

includes under the common name of Inferi 
both the place in which the souls of the 
wicked are kept in a state of torment until 
the day of judgement — and Abraham's Bosom, 
the receptacle prepared for the souls of the 
faithful, where they enjoy a foretaste of the 
happiness which will afterwards be their por- 
tion in heaven. 5 For neither can the full 
reward of the good be conferred, nor the 
full punishment of the wicked inflicted, until 
the soul is re-united to the body at the day 
of judgement. 6 There is, however, as we 
shall hereafter have occasion to observe, some 
inconsistency in Tertullian's language respect- 
ing the purposes for which the soul is kept 
in a separate state apud Inferos. 7 The Bosom 
of Abraham, though not in heaven, was yet 

anima prsecerpit in carcere seu diversorio Inferum, in igne, 
vel in sinu Abrahae. De Anima, c. 7- Nam et nunc animas 
torqueri foverique penes Inferos, licet nudas, licet adhuc 
exules carnis, probabit Lazari exemplum. De Res. Carnis, 
c. 17. See also de Idololatria, c. 13. De Anima, c. 9. sub fine. 

5 See de Res. Carnis, c. 17- quoted in the preceding 
note, where Tertullian says, that the soul suffers the punish- 
ment of evil thoughts and desires in the intermediate state. 

6 See de Anima, c- 58. and de Res. Carnis, c, 42. Ne In- 
feros experiatur, usque novissimum quadrantem exacturos. 

7 Earn itaque regionem sinum dico Abraham, etsi non coeles- 
tem, sublimiorem tamen Inferis, interim refrigerium praebitu- 
ram animabus justorum, donee consummatio rerum resur- 
rectionem omnium plenitudine mercedis expungat. Adv. 
Marcionem, L. iv. c. 34. 



265 

elevated far above the place in which the 
souls of the wicked were confined. 

Tertullian defines 8 Paradise to be a place 
of divine pleasantness, appointed for the re- 
ception of the spirits of the saints. 9 While 
the souls of the rest of mankind were de- 
tained apud Inferos, in the intermediate state 
just described, it was the peculiar privilege 
of the martyrs that their souls were at once 
transferred to Paradise; for 10 St. John in the 
Apocalypse saw the souls of the martyrs, and 
of the martyrs only, under the Altar. n Ac- 
cording to Marcion, they who lived under 
the Law were consigned to the Inferi, there 



8 Et si Paradisum nominemus, locum divinae amcenitatis 
recipiendis Sanctorum spiritibus destinatum, maceria quadam 
igneae illius zonae a notitia orbis communis segregatum. Apo- 
logy, c 47 • Tertullian appears to identify it with the Para- 
dise in which Adam and Eve were placed. De Res. Carnis, 
c. 26. sub fine. 

9 De Anima, c. 55. De Res. Carnis, c. 43. Nemo enim 
peregrinatus a corpore statim immoratur penes Dominum 
nisi ex martyrii praerogativa, scilicet Paradiso, non Inferis 
deversurus. 

10 c. 6. v. 9- 

11 Sed Marcion aliorsum cogit; (Tertullian is speaking 
of the parable of Lazarus) scilicet utramque mercedem Cre- 
atoris, sive tormenti, sive refrigerii, apud Inferos determi- 
nat iis positam, qui Legi et Prophetis obedierint; Christi 
vero et Dei sui ccelestem definit sinum et portum. Adv. 
Marcionem, L. iv. c. 34. 



266 

to receive their reward or punishment; while 
heaven was reserved to the followers of 
Christ. 

Gehenna 12 is, as Tertullian expresses him- 
self, a treasure of secret fire beneath the 
earth, destined for the punishment of the 
wicked. 

These preliminary observations will enable 
us fully to comprehend Tertullian's notions 
respecting Christ's descent into hell. 13 We 
have seen that he defines death to be the 
separation of the soul from the body. 14 Christ 

12 Gehennam si comminemur, quae est ignis arcani subter- 
raneus ad poenam thesaurus. Apology,, c. 47. See de Pceni- 
tentia, cc. 5, 12. De Res. Carnis, cc. 34, 35. 

13 Chap. III. p. 211. 

14 Quid est autem illud quod ad inferna transfertur 
post divortium corporis, quod detinetur illic, quod in diem 
judicii reservatur, ad quod et Christus moriendo descendit, 
puto, ad animas Patriarcharum ? De Anima, c. 7- Siqui- 
dem Christo in corde terrae triduum mortis legimus ex- 
punctum, id est, in recessu intimo, et interno, et in ipsa 
terra operto, et intra ipsam clauso, et inferioribus adhuc 
abyssis superstructo. Quod si Christus Deus, quia et homo, 
mortuus secundum Scripturas, et sepultus secundum eas- 
dem, huic quoque legi satisfecit, forma humance mortis apud 
Inferos functus, nee ante ascendit in sublimiora ccelorum, quam 
descendit in inferiora terrarum, ut illic Patriarchas et Prophe- 
tas compotes sui faceret, &c. c 55. He died according to 
the fashion of the death of man, in that his soul was separated 
from his body. Tertullian, therefore, agrees with Pearson 
respecting the first end of Christ's descent into hell. " I con- 
ceive 



267 

really died: his soul was, therefore, sepa- 
rated from his body ; and as the soul does 
not sleep, but remains in a state of perpe- 
tual activity — in the interval between Christ's 
Crucifixion and Resurrection, his soul de- 
scended to the general receptacle of departed 
souls, and there rendered the patriarchs and 
prophets capable of sharing in the benefits 
which his mission was designed to commu- 
nicate. Pearson, in his remarks upon the 
fifth article of the Creed, has correctly stated 
Tertullian's opinion ; but has not explained 
how it is to be deduced from the passage 
which he quotes, and in which there is no 
mention of the soul of Christ. That which 
Pearson proposes, as the second end of Christ's 
descent into hell, is stated by Tertullian in 
the form of an objection to his own opi- 
nions. 15 Sed in hoc, inquiunt, Christus Infe- 
ros adiit, ne nos adiremus. Pearson's words 
are — 16 " Secondly, by the descent of Christ 
into hell all those which believe in him are 
secured from descending thither ; he went 
into those regions of darkness, that our souls 
might never come into those torments which 
are there." 

ceive that the end for which he did so was, that he 
might undergo the condition of a dead man, as well as 
living." p. 250. Ed. Fol. 1683. 

15 De Anima, c. 55. 16 p. 251. 



268 

Tertullian's opinions respecting Christ's re- 
surrection, the subject of our fourth article, 
may be learned from the Treatise entitled de 
Carne Christi ; which he wrote 17 in confutation 
of certain Heretics, who denied the reality of 
Christ's flesh, or at least its identity with 
human flesh. 18 They were apprehensive that, 
if they admitted the reality of Christ's flesh, 
they must also admit his resurrection in the 
flesh ; and consequently the resurrection of the 
human body after death. 19 Some, therefore, as 
Marcion, denied the reality both of Christ's 
birth and of his flesh: others, 20 as Apelles, 
denied the former, but admitted the latter; 
21 contending that, as the angels are recorded 
in Scripture to have assumed human flesh 
without being born after the fashion of men, 
so might Christ, who according to them re- 
ceived his body from the stars. 22 Others again 

17 Praeterea et nos volumen praemisimus de carne Christi, 
quo earn et solidam probamus adversum phantasmatis vani- 
tatem, et humanam vindicamus ad versus qualitatis proprieta- 
tem. De Res. Carnis, c. 2. 

18 De Carne Christi, c. 1. 

19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 

21 c. 6. Tertullian's answer is, that the angels did not 
come upon earth, like Christ, to suffer, be crucified, and 
die in the flesh ; there was consequently no necessity why 
they should go through the other stages of human being, 
or why they should be born after the fashion of men, c. 6. 

22 cc 10, 11, 12, 13. The reader will perceive that the 
word animal is not here used in its ordinary sense, but means 
that which is animated by a soul. 



269 

assigned to Christ an animal flesh, caro ani-. 
malis, or carnal soul, anima carnalis ; their 
notion was, that the soul, anima, being invi- 
sible, was rendered visible in the flesh, which 
was most intimately united with it or rather 
absorbed in it. 23 Others affirmed that Christ 
assumed the angelic substance ; 24 Valentinus 
assigned him a spiritual flesh; 25 others argued 
that Christ's flesh could not be human flesh, 
because it proceeded not from the seed of man ; 
and 26 Alexander, the Valentinian, seems to 
have denied its reality, on the ground that if 
it was human flesh, it must also be sinful flesh, 
whereas one object of Christ's mission was 
to abolish sinful flesh. Should the reader deem 
the opinions now enumerated so absurd and 
trifling as to be altogether undeserving of 
notice, he must bear in mind that from such 
an enumeration alone can we acquire an ac- 
curate idea of the state of religious contro- 
versy in any particular age. 

23 Tertullian asks in reply, to what end did Christ assume 
the angelic substance, since he came not to effect the sal- 
vation of angels? c. 14. 24 c. 15. 

25 Tertullian's answer is, that on the same ground we 
must deny the reality of Adam's flesh, c. 16. sub fine. 

26 I say seems, for I am not certain that I understand 
the objection. The words of Tertullian are, Insuper argu- 
mentandi libidine, ex forma ingenii haeretici, locum sibi 
fecit Alexander ille, quasi nos adfirmemus, idcirco Christum 
terreni census induisse carnem, ut evacuaret in semetipso 
carnem peccati. The orthodox, according to Alexander, 

affirmed 



270 

In opposition to these various heretical 
notions, our author shews that Christ was 
27 born, lived, suffered, died, and was buried, in 
the flesh. Hence it follows that he also rose 
again in the flesh. " 28 For the same substance 
which fell by the stroke of death and lay in 
the sepulchre, was also raised. 29 In that sub- 
affirmed that Christ put on flesh of earthly origin, in order 
that he might in his own person make void or abolish 
sinful flesh. If, therefore, Alexander contended, Christ 
abolished sinful flesh in himself, his flesh could no longer be 
human flesh. Tertullian answers, we do not say that Christ 
abolished sinful flesh, carnem peccati, but sin in the flesh, 
peccatum carnis : it was for this very end that Christ put 
on human flesh, in order to shew that he could overcome sin 
in the flesh ; to have overcome sin in any other than human 
flesh would have been nothing to the purpose. Tertullian, 
referring to St. Paul, says of Christ, Evacuavit peccatum in 
carne ; alluding, as I suppose, to Rom. viii. 3. But the cor- 
responding Greek in the printed editions is KarUpive rrjv 
dfxaprlav ev rj? aapKi. Had Tertullian a different reading 
in his Greek MSS. ? or did he confound Rom. viii. 3. with 
Rom. vi. 6. iva KCtTap<yr}drj to (rwfxa Trj? dfxaprido ? Jerome 
translates the Greek Karap^ew by evacuo, c 16. See adv. 
Marcionem, L. v. c 14. 

27 Tertullian contends that, if Christ's birth from the 
Virgin is once proved, the reality of his flesh follows as 
a necessary consequence ; it being impossible otherwise to 
assign any reasonable cause why he should be born. See 
cc. 2, 3, 4, 5. 20, 21, 22,23. 

28 Ipsum enim quod cecidit in morte, quod jacuit in 
sepultura, hoc et resurrexit, non tarn Christus in carne, 
quam caro in Christo. De Res. Carnis, c. 48. 

29 De Carne Christi, c. 16. De Res. Carnis, c. 51. Quum 
illic adhuc sedeat Iesus ad dexteram Patris ; homo, etsi Deus ; 
Adam novissimus, etsi Sermo primarius ; caro et sanguis, 
etsi nostris puriora ; idem tamen et substantia et forma qua 

ascendit 



271 

stance Christ now sits at the right hand of. 
the Father — being man, though God; the last 
Adam, though the primary Word; flesh and 
blood, though of a purer kind than those of 
men — and according to the declaration of the 
angels, he will descend at the day of judge- 
ment, in form and substance the same as he 
ascended ; since he must be recognised by those 
who pierced him. He who is called the Me- 
diator between God and man, is entrusted 
with a deposit from each party. As he left 
with us the earnest of the Spirit, so he took 
from us the earnest of the flesh, and carried 
it with him into heaven, to assure us that 
both the flesh and the Spirit will then be 
collected into one sum." 

Towards 30 the end of the Treatise, Ter- 

ascendit talis etiam descensurus, ut Angeli affirmant (Act. 
i. 11.) agnoscendus scilicet iis, qui ilium convulneraverunt. 
Hie, sequester Dei atque hominum appellatus, (1 Tim. ii. 5.) 
ex utriusque partis deposito commisso sibi, carnis quoque 
depositum servat in semetipso, arrabonem summae totius. 
Quemadmodum enim nobis arrabonem Spiritus reliquit, ita 
et a nobis arrabonem carnis accepit et vexit in coelum pignus 
totius summae, illuc quandoque redigendae. We shall see 
what our author meant by flesh and blood of a purer 
kind than those of men, when we speak of the Tract de 
Resurrectione Carnis. 

30 c. 24. Ut et illi erubescant, qui affirmant carnem in 
ccelis vacuam sensu, ut vaginam, exempto Christo sedere; aut 
qui carnem et animam tantundem ; aut tantummodo animam ; 
carnem vero non jam. See Pearson, Article vi. p. 272. 



272 

tullian mentions various strange notions respect- 
ing the session of Christ at the right hand of 
God. Some Heretics supposed that his flesh 
sat there, devoid of all sensation, like an empty 
scabbard : others that his human soul sat there 
without the flesh: others his flesh and human 
soul, or in other words, his human nature 
alone. 

On account of the intimate connexion be- 
tween the doctrine of the resurrection of the 
body and that of Christ's resurrection, we will 
take this opportunity of giving a short account 
of Tertullian's Treatise de Resurrectione Carnis. 
The Heretics, against whom it is directed, 
were the same who maintained that the Demi- 
urge, or God who created this world and 
gave the Mosaic dispensation, was opposed to 
the Supreme God. 31 Hence they attached an 
idea of inherent corruption and worthlessness 
to all his works — among the rest, to the flesh 
or body of man ; affirming that it could not rise 
again, and that the soul alone was capable of 
inheriting immortality. 32 Tertullian, therefore, 

31 cc. 4, 5. The reader will find what appears to be more 
than an accidental resemblance between this treatise and the 
fragments of a tract on the same subject, ascribed to Justin 
Martyr. See Grabe's Spicilegium. Tom. ii. 

32 See c. 9« where Tertullian sums up the arguments 
advanced in the preceding chapters. Igitur ut retexam, quam 

Deus 



273 

in the first place endeavours to prove that 
God cannot deem that flesh beneath his notice, 
or unworthy to be raised again, "which he 
framed with his own hands in the image of 
God ; — which he afterwards animated with his 
own breath, communicating to it that life, of 
which the principle is within himself ; — which 
he appointed to inhabit, to enjoy, to rule over 
his whole creation ;— which he clothes with his 
sacraments and his discipline, loving its purity, 
approving its mortifications, and ascribing a 
value to its sufferings." 

Having thus removed the preliminary ob- 
jections founded on the supposed worthlessness 
of the flesh, our author proceeds 33 to prove 
that the body will rise again ; and first asserts 

Deus manibus suis ad imaginem Dei struxit — quam de suo 
adflatu ad similitudinem suae vivacitatis animavit — quam 
incolatui, fructui, dominatui totius suae operationis praeposuit — 
quam sacramentis suis disciplinisque vestivit — cujus mun- 
ditias amat — cujus castigationes probat — cujus passiones sibi 
adpreciat — haeccine non resurget, totiens Dei? Tertul- 
lian's notion was, that when God said " Let us make man 
in our linage," he alluded to the form which Christ was 
to bear during his abode on earth. Quodcunque enim limus 
exprimebatur, Christus cogitabatur homo futurus, quod et 
limus, et Sermo caro, quod et terra tunc. Sic enim prae- 
fatio Patris ad Filium, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et 
similitudinem nostram. Et fecit hominem Deus. Id utique 
quod finxit, ad imaginem Dei fecit ilium, scilicet Christi, 
c. 6. Compare adv. Praxeam, c. 12. 

33 c. 1 ] . Compare the Apology, c. 48. 
S 



274 

the power of God to rebuild the tabernacle 
of the flesh, in whatever manner it may be 
dissolved. If we suppose even that it is an- 
nihilated, He who created all things out of 
nothing can surely raise the dead body again 
from nothing. M Nor is there any absurdity 
in supposing that the members of the human 
body, which may have been destroyed by fire 
or devoured by birds or beasts, will never- 
theless at the last day be re-united to it. Such 
a supposition, on the contrary, is countenanced 
by 35 Scripture. 56 Tertullian further contends 
that the doctrine of the resurrection of the body 
is rendered credible by innumerable instances 
of a resurrection in the natural world. The 
passage has been translated and adopted by 
57 Pearson, in his Exposition of the eleventh 
Article of the Creed. He does not indeed 
appear to have been aware that some of the 
instances alleged are nothing to the purpose — 
such as the changes of day and night, of 
summer and winter. If any inference is to be 

34 c. 32. Compare Pearson, Article XL p. 374. 

35 Tertullian's words are, Sed ne solummodo eorum cor- 
porum resurrectio videatur praedicari quae sepulchris deman- 
dantur, habes scriptum ; then follows a passage which in 
Sender's Index is stated as a quotation from Revelations 
xx. 13 ; but, if our author had that passage in view, he 
has strangely altered it. 

36 c. 12. Compare the Apology, c. 48. 
3 ? p. 3J6. 



275 

drawn from them, it would rather be in favour 
of an alternate dissolution and restoration of 
the same bodies. 38 Among other illustrations, 
the instance of the phoenix is brought forward, 
of which the early Fathers appear to have 
been fond. 

Having established the power of God to 
raise the dead body, 39 Tertullian next enquires 
whether any reasons exist which should induce 
him to exert that power. 40 As he intends to 
judge mankind, and to reward or punish them 
according to their conduct in this life, it is 
evident that the ends of justice will not be 
attained, unless men rise again with the same 
bodies which they had when riving. The body 
co-operated with the soul in this world: it 
carried into effect the good or evil designs which 
the soul conceived: it ought, therefore, to be 
associated with the soul in its future glory or 
misery. 41 Tertullian further contends that the 
very term resurrection implies a resurrection 
of the body : for that alone can be raised which 
has fallen, and it is the body, not the soul, 
which falls by the stroke of death. The same 
inference may be drawn from the compound 

38 C. 13. 39 cc> 14}} ]5# 

40 Compare Apology, c. 48. Pearson, Article XL p. 376. 
Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 12. 

41 c. 18. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. v. cc. 9. 14. 

S % 



276 

expression Resurrectio Mortuorum : " for man/' 
as 42 Pearson, who urges both this argument 
and the preceding, paraphrases the words, 
" man dieth, not in reference to his soul, 
which is immortal, but his body." 

The arguments of the Heretics against 
the resurrection of the body, were deduced 
either from general reasoning, or from passages 
of Scripture. Of the former description were 
the following. 43 " The body, you say, in the 
present life is the receptacle or instrument of 
the soul by which it is animated. It has itself 
neither will, nor sense, nor understanding. 
How then can it be a fit subject of reward 
or punishment ? or to what purpose will it be 
raised? Why may not the soul exist in the 
next world, either wholly divested of a body, 
or clothed in an entirely different body?" 
44 Tertullian replies that, although the principle 
of action is in the soul, it can effect nothing 
without the body. It thinks, wills, disposes : 
but in order to carry its designs into execution, 
it needs the assistance of the body, which is also 
the medium of sensation. The soul, it is true, 
might by means of its corporeal substance, 
suffer the punishment due to sinful desires : 

42 Article XL p. 382. 43 cc. 16, 1% 

44 Compare adv. Marcionera, L. i. c. 24. L. v. c. 10. 



277 

but unless it shall hereafter be re-united to the 
body, sinful actions will remain unpunished. 

"If 45 then," the Heretics rejoined, "the body 
is to be raised, is it to be raised with all the 
infirmities and defects under which it laboured 
on earth? Are the blind, the lame, the de- 
formed, those especially who were so from their 
birth, to appear with the same imperfections at 
the day of judgement ?" " No," replies Tertullian : 
" the Almighty does not his work by halves. 
He, who raises the dead to life, will raise the 
body in its perfect integrity. This is part of 
the change which the body will undergo at 
the resurrection. For though the dead will be 
raised in the flesh, yet they who attain to the 
resurrection of happiness will pass into 46 the 
angelic state and put on the vesture of immor- 
tality ; according to the declaration of St. Paul, 
that " this corruptible must put on incorruption, 
and this mortal must put on immortality" — 
and again, that " our vile bodies will be changed 
that they may be fashioned like unto the 
glorious body of Christ." 47 We must not, 
however, suppose that this change is incom- 
patible with the identity of the body. Con- 
tinual changes take place in the substance of 

45 cc. 4. 57- 46 Compare cc. 36, 42, and 55. 

47 cc. 55, 56. 



278 

man from his birth to his death : his consti- 
tution, his bulk, his strength is perpetually 
changing; yet he remains the same man. So 
when after death he passes into a state of 
incorruption and immortality, as the mind, the 
memory, the conscience which he now has will 
not 48 be done away, so neither will his body. 
Otherwise he would suffer in a different body 
from that in which he sinned ; and the dis- 
pensations of God would appear to be at 
variance with his justice, which evidently re- 
quires that the same soul should be re-united 
to the same body at the last day. 49 Never- 
theless, in consequence of this change, the flesh 
will no longer be subject to infirmities and 
sufferings, or the soul be disturbed by unruly 
passions and desires. 

« The 50 body, therefore," the Heretics replied, 
" after it is risen, will be subject to no suffer- 
ings, will be harrassed by no wants ; what 
then will be the use of those members which 
at present administer to its necessities ? what 
offices will the mouth, the throat, the teeth, 

48 The corresponding Latin word is aboleri, c. 56. 

49 c. 57- Ita manebit quidem caro etiam post resur- 
rectionem, eatenus passibilis qua ipsa, qua eadem ; ea tamen 
impassibilis qua in hoc ipsum manumissa a Domino, ne 
ultra pati possit, &c. 

50 cc. 60, 61, 62, 63. 



279 

the stomach, the intestines have to perform, 
when man will no longer eat and drink ?" We 
have said, answers Tertullian, that the body 
will undergo a change; and as man will then 
be free from the wants of this life, so will 
his members be released from many of their 
present duties. But it does not, therefore, 
follow that they will be wholly without use : 
the mouth, for instance, will be employed in 
singing praises to God. Nor will the final 
retribution be complete, unless the whole man 
stands before the judgement seat of God — 
unless man stands there with all his members 
perfect. 

When 51 the Heretics argued from Scripture, 
they sometimes said in general, that " the lan- 
guage of Scripture is frequently figurative, and 
ought to be so considered in the present in- 
stance. 52 The resurrection of which it speaks 
is a moral or spiritual resurrection — a resur- 

51 c. 19. 

52 Pearson calls this a Socinian notion. Article XI. p. 382. 
One of King Edward's Articles entitled, " Resurrectio mor- 
tuorum nondum est facta/' is directed against it. Resur- 
rectio mortuorum non adhuc facta est, quasi tantum ad 
animum pertineat, qui per Christi gratiam a morte pecca- 
torum excitetur. The Article then proceeds, in exact con-, 
formity with our author's opinion, to state that the souls 
of men will be re-united to their bodies at the last day, 
in order to receive the final sentence of God. 



280 

rection of the soul from the grave of sin — from 
the death of ignorance to the light of truth 
and to the knowledge of God. Man, there- 
fore, rises again, according to the meaning of 
Scripture, in baptism." Aware, however, that 
they might shock the feelings of those whom 
they wished to convert, by an abrupt and total 
denial of the resurrection, they practised a 
verbal deception, and affirmed that every man 
must rise again, not in the flesh generally, in 
came, but in this flesh, in hdc came; tacitly 
referring to their moral resurrection, and mean- 
ing that man must in this life be initiated 
into their extravagant mysteries. Others again, 
in order to get rid of the resurrection of the 
flesh, interpreted the resurrection to mean the 
departure of the soul either from this world, 
which they called the habitation of the dead, 
that is, of those who know not God: or from 
the body, in which, as in a sepulchre, they 
conceived the soul to be detained. 53 These 
objections afford Tertullian an opportunity of 
making some pertinent observations upon the 
marks by which we must determine when the 
language of Scripture is to be figuratively un- 
derstood. 54 In this case, he says, we cannot 

53 c. 20. In c. 33, are some good remarks upon the mode 
of distinguishing between what is to be understood literally,, 
and what to be regarded as mere illustration in our Saviour's 
Parables. 54 c. 21. 



281 

so understand it, because the whole Christian 
faith hinges upon the doctrine of a future state ; 
and surely God would not have made the 
Gospel rest upon a figure. 55 Christ moreover, 
in the prophecy in which he at once predicted 
the destruction of Jerusalem, and the final 
consummation of all things, connected the re- 
surrection with his second coming; and we 
trace the same connexion 56 in many passages 
of St. Paul's Epistles, as well as in the Apo- 
calypse. What then becomes of those figu- 
rative interpretations, according to which 37 the 
resurrection is already past ? 58 At least, Ter- 
tullian adds, the Heretics ought to be con- 
sistent with themselves, and not to put a figu- 
rative construction on all that is said of the 
body, while they interpret literally whatever 
is said of the soul. Our author, however, is 
not content with proving the figurative inter- 
pretation to be inapplicable in the present 
instance : 59 he is determined to fight his ad- 
versaries with their own weapons, and pro- 
duces passages of Scripture, equally or even 
more inapplicable, in which he finds the resur- 

55 c. 22. 

56 cc. 23, 24, 25. 

57 2 Tim. ii. 18. 

58 c. 32. 

59 cc. 26, 27, 28. See for instance the interpretation of 
Isaiah lviii. 8. in c. 27. 



282 

rection prefigured and typified. 60 He dwells 
particularly on the vision of dry bones in 
Ezekiel ; and urges it in proof of the resur- 
rection of the body. 61 By the Heretics it was 
referred to the captivity of the Jews, and their 
subsequent restoration to their native land. 
62 We learn incidentally from Tertullian's inter- 
pretation, that in his opinion the doctrine of 
the resurrection had been previously revealed 
to the Jews ; and that the design of the vision 
was to confirm their wavering belief. 

The passages of Scripture on which Ter- 
tullian rests his proof of the resurrection of 
the body are such as the following. 63 Christ 
said that he came to save what was lost. What 
then was lost ? The whole man, both soul and 
body. The body, therefore, must be saved as 
well as the soul; otherwise the purpose of 
Christ's coming will not be accomplished. 
64 Christ also, when he enjoined his hearers to 
fear Him only, who can destroy both soul and 
body in hell, evidently assumed the resurrec- 

60 c. 29. In speaking of this chapter of Ezekiel (xxxvii.) 
Tertullian falls into a chronological error: he supposes that 
Ezekiel prophesied before the Captivity, c. 31. 

61 c. 30. Pearson appears to have thought that the Vision 
had no reference to the resurrection of the body. Article XI. 
p. 372. 

62 c 31. Compare c. 39- m c. 34. Luke xix. 10. 
64 c. 35. Matt. x. 28. 



283 

tion of the body ; as well as 65 in his answer 
to the question of the Sadducees respecting 
the woman who had been seven times married. 
Of the other arguments urged by Tertullian, 
I will mention only one, which possesses at 
least the merit of ingenuity. 66 The Athenians, 
he observes, would not have sneered at St. Paul 
for preaching the doctrine of the resurrection, 
in case he had maintained a mere resurrection 
of the soul; since that was a doctrine with 
which they were sufficiently familiar. 

Both 67 parties appealed to the miracle per- 
formed by Christ in raising Lazarus. Ter- 
tullian contended that he performed it in order 
to confirm the faith of his disciples, by ex- 
hibiting the very mode in which the future 
resurrection would take place. The Heretics 
described it as a mere exercise of power, which 
could not have been rendered cognizable by 
the senses, had not the body of Lazarus been 
raised as well as the soul. 

"St. Paul," 68 the Heretics further argued, 
"speaks of an outward man that perishes, and 
of an inward man that is renewed from day 
to day; evidently alluding to the body and 

65 c. 36. 06 c. 39. « 7 cc. 39. 53. 

68 cc. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44. 2 Cor. iv. 16. 



284 

soul, and intimating that the latter alone 
will be saved." Tertullian answers that this pas- 
sage is to be understood of what takes place, 
not in a future, but in the present life — of 
the afflictions to which the bodies of Christians 
are subjected in consequence of their profession 
of the Gospel, and of their daily advancement 
in faith and love through the inspiration of 
the Holy Spirit. In like manner when 69 St. 
Paul distinguished between the old and the 
new man, expressions which the Heretics also 
interpreted of the body and soul — he meant 
to speak of a difference, not of substance, but 
of character. The old man was the Jew or 
Gentile, who walked in the lusts of the 
flesh; the new man the Christian, who being 
renewed in the spirit of his mind, led a life 
of purity and holiness. 70 So when the Apo- 
stle says that they who are in the flesh cannot 
please God, he condemns not the flesh, but 
the works of the flesh : for he shortly after- 
wards 71 adds, that they, who by the Spirit 
mortify the deeds of the flesh, shall live. 

But 72 the passage on which the Heretics 

69 cc. 45, 46, 47- Eph. iv. 22. 

70 Romans viii. 8. 71 Romans viii. 13. 

72 c. 48. 1 Cor. xv. 50. Some in Tertullian's day appear 
to have interpreted the expression flesh and blood in this 
passage, as well as in Galatians i. 16. of Judaism, c. 50. 



2S5 

principally relied, was the declaration of St 
Paul, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the 
kingdom of heaven. " Here," they said, " is no 
figure, but a plain and express assertion, that 
the body cannot be saved." To this objection 
Tertullian gives a variety of answers. He 
first states the circumstances which led the 
Apostle into that particular train of thought; 
and shews very satisfactorily that, as St. Paul 
makes Christ's resurrection the foundation of 
our hope of a resurrection, the necessary in- 
ference is, that we shall rise as he did, that 
is, in the flesh. 73 He then borrows a weapon 
from the armory of his opponents, and says 
that the expression flesh and blood is figurative, 
and means carnal conversation ; which certainly 
excludes man from the kingdom of heaven. 
74 "But if," he proceeds, "the expression is 
understood literally, still it contains no direct 
denial of the resurrection of the body. We 
must distinguish between the resurrection of 
the body, and its admission into the kingdom 
of heaven. The same body is raised in order 
that the whole man may stand before the 
judgement seat of God; but before he can be 
received into the kingdom of heaven, 75 he 

73 c. 49. Compare adv. Marcionern, L. v. c. 10. 

74 cc. 50, 51. 42. 

75 Compare the Apology, c. 48. superinduti substantia pro- 
pria seternitatis. The substance of the glorified body will 

be, 



286 

must be changed — must be made partaker of 
the vivifying influence of the Spirit, and put 
on the vesture of incorruption and immor- 
tality. Death is the separation of the soul 
from the body: the body crumbles in the 
dust : the soul passes to the Inferi, where it 
remains in a state of imperfect happiness or 
misery according to the deeds done in the 
flesh. At the day of judgement it will be 
re-united to the body, and man will then re- 
ceive his final sentence : if of condemnation, he 
will suffer eternal punishment in hell ; if of 
justification, his body will be transformed and 
glorified, and he will thus be fitted to par- 
take of the happiness of heaven. They who 
shall be alive on earth at the day of judge- 
ment will not die, but will at once undergo 
the change above described." 

" But 76 does not St. Paul say, ' that which 

be, according to Tertullian, the same as that of the angels. 
De Cultu Fceminarum, L. i. c. 2. sub fine. Ad Uxorem, 
L. i. c. 1. Ad Martyres, c. 3. De Anima, c. 56. Ad Ange- 
licas plenitudinis mensuram temperatura. Our Saviour's de- 
claration, that in the resurrection men will be as the angels 
of God, appears to have given rise to this notion respect- 
ing the angelic substance. The change which will take 
place in the body of man is urged by Tertullian in answer 
to another Heretical argument, founded upon the difference 
between this world and the next: "whatever belongs to 
the latter is immortal, and cannot therefore be possessed 
by ' flesh and blood' which are mortal," c. 59. 

76 c. 52. 1 Cor. xv. 37- In interpreting St. Paul's words, 

There 



287 

thou sowest, thou sowest not that body which 
shall be, but bare grain?' and does not this 
comparison necessarily imply that man will be 
raised in a different body from that in which 
he died?" Tertullian answers, by no means: 
for though there may be a difference of ap- 
pearance, the body remains in kind, in nature, 
in quality the same. If you sow a grain of 
wheat, barley does not come up; or the con- 
verse. The Apostle's comparison leads to the 
inference that a change will take place in the 
body, but not such a change as will destroy 
its identity. 

The 77 Heretics grounded an argument upon 
another passage in the same chapter; but in 
order to understand it we must turn to the 
original Greek. The words are, <nrGipeTm awjma 
yj/ux^ou, seminatur corpus animale; which 78 in 

There is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, 
another of fishes, another of birds, our author understands 
men to mean servants of God, beasts the heathen, birds 
martyrs who essay to fly up to heaven, fishes the mass of 
Christians, those who have been baptised. So in a sub- 
sequent passage, There is one glory of the sun, and another 
glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars, the sun 
means Christ, the moon the Church, the stars the seed of 
Abraham, whether Jews or Christians. 

77 c. 53. 1 Cor. xv. 44. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. v- 
c 10. 

78 Our translators, though they have not rendered the 
word ^v^ikov literally, appear correctly to have represented 

St. Paul's 



288 

our Version are rendered, it is sown a natural 
body. The Heretics affirmed aco/xa yj/vx^ov to 
be merely a periphrasis for ^v^b and aw/ma 
Trvev/iaTiKov for TTvevfia. St. Paul, therefore, by- 
omitting all mention of the flesh, evidently 
intended to exclude it from all share of the 
resurrection. In our account of the Treatise 
de Anima, we stated that our author conceived 
God to have given a soul to Adam, when 
the breath of life was breathed into his nos- 
trils. He argues, therefore, that as aw/ma xJ/i^koV 
means a body animated by a soul, ato/ma irvev- 
/ulcltikov means the same body, now become the 
habitation of the Spirit, and thus imbued with 
the principle of immortality. The passage, far 
from subverting, establishes the doctrine of 
the resurrection of the body. 

We will conclude this analysis of Tertul- 
lian's Tract with observing, that he alludes 
to the passage respecting the baptism for the 
dead, in the fifteenth chapter of the first 
Epistle to the Corinthians; and 79 speaks of it 

St. Paul's meaning. 'O avOpwrros y^/v^mos is, as Tertullian 
expresses himself, homo solius camis et animce, the natural 
man — as opposed to 6 avdpw7ro<; Trvev/jiaTiKos, the man who 
has received the Holy Spirit. 

79 Si autem et baptizantur quidam pro mortuis (vide- 
bimus an rati one ?) certe ilia praesumptione hoc eos insti- 
tuisse contendit, qua alii etiam carni, ut vicarium baptisma. 

profuturum 



289 

as if St. Paul had referred to a superstitious 
practice prevalent in his days, of baptising a 
living person as a proxy for the dead. But 
80 in the fifth Book against Marcion he ridi- 
cules this as an idle fancy, on which it was 
unlikely that St. Paul should found an argu- 
ment ; and interprets the words for the dead 
to mean for the body, which is declared to be 
dead in baptism. 

Passing over for the present the fifth 
Article of our Church, for the 81 same reasons 
which induced us to omit the first and 
second, we proceed to the sixth. The first 
question which presents itself for our consi- 
deration is, whether Tertullian uniformly speaks 
of the Scriptures, as containing the whole rule to 
which the faith and practice of Christians must 
be conformed, in points necessary to salvation. 

profuturum existimarent ad spem resurrectionis, qua? nisi 
corporalis, non alias hie baptismate corporali obligantur, 
c. 48. 

80 Quid, ait, facient qui pro mortuis baptizantur, si morlui 
non resurgunt ? Viderit institutio ista ; Calendae si forte 
Februariae respondebunt illi, pro mortuis petere. Noli 
ergo Apostolum novum statim auctorem aut confirmatorem 
ejus denotare, ut tanto magis sisteret carnis resurrectionem, 
quanto illi, qui vane pro mortuis baptizarentur, fide resurrecti- 
onis hoc facerent. Habemus ilium alicubi unius baptism! 
definitorem. Igitur et pro mortuis tingui pro corporibus est 
tingui: mortuum enim corpus ostendimus, c. 10. 

81 p. 262. 

T 



290 

To this enquiry his pointed condemnation, 
82 already quoted, of the Valentinian notion, 
that the Apostles had not communicated to 
mankind, publicly and indifferently, all the 
truths imparted to them by their Heavenly 
Master, appears to furnish a satisfactory answer. 
So great indeed is the weight which he is on 
some occasions disposed to ascribe to the autho- 
rity of Scripture, that he 85 goes the length of 
denying the lawfulness of any act which is 
not permitted therein; and 84 even of asserting 
that whatever is not there related, must be 
supposed not to have happened. We mean 
not to defend this extravagant language, but 
produce it in order to shew what were his 
opinions on the subject. 

But does Tertullian always speak the same 
language? Does he not on other occasions 
appeal to Tradition? Does he not even say, 
in his Tract de Praescriptione Hsereticorum, 
that in arguing with the Heretics no appeal 

82 Chap. IV. p. 250. 

83 Iramo prohibetur, quod non ultro permissura est. De 
Corona, c. 2. sub fine. Tertullian, however, appears him- 
self to have been conscious of the weakness of the reasoning. 
See also ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 2. sub fine. 

84 Negat Scriptura quod non notat. De Monogamia, c 4. 
Scripture mentions the Polygamy of Lamech, but of no 
other individual ; he was, therefore, according to Tertullian, 
at that period the only polygamist. 



291 

ought to be made to the Scriptures; and that 
they can only be confuted by ascertaining the 
Tradition which has been preserved and 
handed down, in the Apostolic Churches? 
Undoubtedly he does.— But in order to un- 
derstand the precise meaning of Tertullian's 
appeal to Tradition, we must consider the 
object which he had immediately in view. 
85 "In disputing with the Heretics," he says, 
"it is necessary, in the very outset, to except 
against all arguments urged by them out of 
Scripture. 86 For as they do not acknowledge 
all the books received by the Church; and 
have mutilated or corrupted those which they 
do acknowledge ; and have put their own in- 
terpretations upon the passages respecting the 
genuineness of which both parties are agreed; 
the first point to be determined is, which of 
the two is in possession of the genuine Scrip- 
tures, and of their true interpretation. How 
then is this point to be determined? By en- 
quiring what doctrines are held, and what Scrip- 
tures received, by the Apostolic Churches : for 
in them is preserved the truth, as it was origi- 
nally communicated by Christ to the Apostles, 
and by the Apostles, either orally or by letter, 
to the Churches which they founded; so 
that whatever doctrines and Scriptures are 

85 c 15. See also c 57- 86 c. 17- 

t2 



292 

so held and received, must be deemed ortho- 
dox and genuine." Tertullian's opponents do 
not appear to have objected to the correctness 
of this mode of reasoning, but to have denied 
the premises. 87 They contended either that the 
Apostles were not themselves fully instructed 
in the truth; or that they did not commu- 
nicate to the Churches all the truths which 
had been revealed to them. 

In 88 support of the former assertion they 
alleged the reproof given by St. Paul to St. 
Peter; which they conceived to imply a de- 
fect of knowledge on the part of the latter. 
Tertullian justly observes in reply, that the 
controversy between those two Apostles related 
not to any fundamental article of faith, but 
to a question of practice — whether St. Peter 
had not been guilty of inconsistency in his 
conduct towards the Gentile brethren. 

In 89 support of the second assertion they 
quoted St. Paul's exhortations to Timothy : 
" Keep that which is committed to thy trust"— 
"That good thing which was committed to 
thee, keep :" — interpreting these expressions of 

87 cc. 19, 20, 21. See also cc. 37, 38. Compare adv. Mar- 
cionem, L. i. c. 21. 

88 c. 22. 

m c. 23. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 3. 



293 

certain doctrines which St. Paul had secretly 
communicated to Timothy : though, as Tertul- 
lian well remarks, 90 St. Paul's design was merely 
to caution Timothy against allowing any new 
doctrine to creep in, different from that in 
which he had been instructed. 

" But 91 may not," the Heretics asked, " may 
not the Churches in process of time have per- 
verted the doctrine originally delivered to them 
by the Apostles? May they not all have 
wandered from the truth?" "Such an infer- 
ence," our author answers, "is contrary to all 
experience. Truth is uniform and consistent; 
but it is of the very essence of error to be 
continually assuming new shapes. If the 
Churches had erred, they would have erred 
after many different fashions; whence then 
arises this surprising agreement in error? The 
single fact, that the same doctrine is main- 
tained by so many different Churches situated 
in distant quarters of the globe, affords a 
strong presumption of its truth." I need scarcely 
observe, that the force of this argument was 
much greater in Tertullian's time, when all the 
Churches were independent, than in after ages 
when the bishops of Rome assumed the right 

90 cc. 25, 26. 1 Tim. vi. 20. 2 Tim. i. 14. 

91 cc. 27, 28. 



294 

of prescribing the rule of faith to the whole 
Christian community. 92 In this part of his 
argument our author clearly shews his opinion 
to be, that the promise of the Holy Spirit, 
made by Christ to the Church, precludes the 
possibility of an universal defection from the 
true faith. 

The 95 superior antiquity of the doctrine 
maintained in the Church furnishes Tertullian 
with another argument in favour of its truth. 
As truth necessarily precedes error, which is 
as it were its image or counterfeit, that 
must be the true doctrine which was prior 
in time ; that which was subsequent, false : — 
and it may be easily shown that the origin 
of the Heretical sects was posterior to the 
foundation of the Apostolic Churches. 

The 94 circumstance, however, most to our 
present purpose is, that Tertullian, when he 
comes at last to examine and confute the 
Heretical doctrines, appeals to the Apostolic 
writings ; and shews that St. Paul had, as it 
were by anticipation, condemned many of those 

92 See the commencement of c. 28. 

93 cc. 29, 30, 31, 32. Compare the Apology, c. 47- 

94 cc. 33, 34>. See also c. 38. in which Tertullian asserts 
in the strongest terms the genuineness and integrity of the 
Scriptures used in the Church. 



295 

doctrines. If he had not condemned all, it 
was simply because all were not then in ex- 
istence; his very silence, therefore, proves the 
novelty, and consequently the falsehood of the 
Heretical opinions which he did not notice. 
Tertullian alleges as an instance, the Here- 
tical notion that the Demiurge who gave 
the law was not only a distinct being from 
the Supreme God who gave the Gospel, but 
at variance with him. " If this opinion existed 
in the days of St. Paul, how comes it that he 
never alludes to it in his Epistles? The 
questions which he discusses relate to meats 
offered to idols, to marriage, to the introduction 
of fables and endless genealogies, and to the re- 
surrection. 95 Much of his labour is employed 
in proving that the observance of the Mosaic 
ritual is no longer obligatory on the con- 
science. Surely he would not have taken this 
unnecessary trouble, if the Heretical doctrine 
now alluded to had been then received; since 
he might at once have put an end to the 
controversy by saying, that the Law and the 
Gospel did not proceed from the same author. 

If then we closely attend to the object 
which Tertullian had in view, we shall be led 
to the conclusion, that the Tract de Praescrip- 

95 See adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 2. 



296 

tione Heereticorum, far from lending any sanc- 
tion, is directly opposed to the Roman Ca- 
tholic notion respecting Tradition — to the 
notion that there are certain doctrines, of 
which the belief is necessary to salvation, and 
which rest on the authority, not of Scripture, 
but of unwritten Tradition. Tertullian, it is 
true, refuses to dispute with the Heretics out 
of the Scriptures : not, however, because he 
was not persuaded that the Scriptures con- 
tained the whole rule of faith ; but because 
the Heretics rejected a large portion of the 
Sacred Writings ; and either mutilated or put 
forced and erroneous interpretations upon those 
parts which they received. Before, therefore, 
an appeal could be made to the Scriptures, it 
was necessary to determine which were the 
genuine Scriptures, and what the true inter- 
pretation of them. The first of these ques- 
tions was purely historical ; to be determined 
by ascertaining what books had from the ear- 
liest times been generally received by the 
Apostolic Churches: and 96 with respect to the 
second, though interpretations which had re- 
ceived the sanction of the Church were not 



96 Respecting the degree of authority ascribed by our 
Church to Tradition, in the interpretation of Scripture, see 
some excellent remarks of Bishop Jebb, in the Appendix 
to his Sermons. 



297 

to be lightly rejected, yet the practice of 
Tertullian himself proves that he believed 
every Christian to be at liberty to exercise 
his own judgement upon them. The language 
of Tertullian corresponds exactly with that of 
the Church of England in the 20th Article. 
According to him, the Church is the witness 
and keeper of Holy Writ; but so far is he 
from thinking that the Church can either 
decide any thing against Scripture, or prescribe 
any thing not contained in it, as necessary to 
salvation, that he uniformly and strenuously 
insists 97 upon the exact agreement between the 



97 See de Prescript. Haeretic. c. 38. While the first 
Edition of the present work was passing through the press, 
I received a copy of the translation of Dr. Schleiermacher's 
Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke. In a learned 
and ingenious Introduction, the Translator has made some 
1 remarks on the superiority ascribed by Tertullian to 
Tradition over Scripture, with a particular reference to 
the Tract de Praescriptione Haereticorum. He admits that 
" Tertullian's argument is perfectly consistent with Protestant 
principles ;'' and that "the Tradition which is the subject 
of controversy between Roman Catholics and Protestants is 
very different from the Traditio Apostolorum spoken of by 
Tertullian (de Praescr. Haeret. c. 21.)." But he afterwards 
states "what he conceives to be an incontestable fact, that 
the maxims of the Protestant Church with respect to the 
use of the Scriptures are as different from those which pre- 
vailed in all ages, from the time of Tertullian down to the 
Reformation, as from those which now prevail in the Roman 
Catholic Church." As I had myself expressed a different 

opinion, 

1 p. cxxxv. et seq. 



298 

Tradition preserved in the Church and the 
doctrine delivered in Scripture. 

opinion, viz. that Tertullian's language respecting Tradition 
corresponds exactly with that of the Church of England — 
one, and certainly not the least important, branch of the 
Protestant Church — I was induced, by the learned Trans- 
lator's remark, to re-consider the subject; and I must con- 
fess that, after having again perused the Tract de Prae- 
scriptione Haereticorum, I discover no reason for coming to 
a different conclusion from that which I had before formed. 

From the commencement of the Treatise it appears that 
the minds of many members of the Church were disquieted 
by the rapid progress of heresy. They were surprised and 
scandalised at the divisions which prevailed among those 
who called themselves Christians : and their surprise was 
increased by observing that men of high reputation for 
wisdom and piety from time to time quitted the Church, 
and attached themselves to one or other of the heretical 
sects. Tertullian, therefore, in the first four Chapters of 
the Tract contends that the existence and prevalence of 
heresy ought not to be a matter of surprise ; since Christ had 
predicted that heresies would arise, and St. Paul had affirmed 
that the very purpose of their existence was to prove the 
faith of Christians. 

In the fifth and sixth Chapters, he appeals to the au- 
thority of the same Apostle, in proof of the mischievous 
nature of heresy; and in the seventh, traces the tenets of 
the different sects to the Grecian philosophy. In the eighth, 
he states that the Heretics gained many converts to their 
opinions by persuading men that it was the duty of every 
Christian to search the Scriptures, " Seek," they said, " and 
you shall Jlnd ; knock, and it shall be opened unto you, are 
the injunctions of Christ himself." Tertullian, in reply, 
first contends that those injunctions were delivered in the 
very outset of Christ's ministry, and addressed especially 
to the Jews, who, by searching their Scriptures — those of 
the Old Testament — might have learned that He was the 
Messiah predicted by the prophets. " But grant," Tertul- 
lian continues, " that the injunction was addressed indiscri- 
minately 



299 

If we mistake not the signs of the times ? . 
the period is not far distant when the whole 

mmately to all mankind, still it is evident that Christ intended 
to propose some definite object of search ; and when that was 
attained, to release his followers from the labour of further 
enquiry. He could not mean that they were to go on 
searching for ever. They were to enquire what was the 
doctrine which he had actually delivered; and when they 
had found it, they were to believe. If, after having been 
once satisfied that they have found the truth, Christians are 
to recommence their enquiries as often as a new opinion 
is started, their faith can never be settled or stedfast. 
At least, it must be allowed to be absurd and useless to 
seek the truth among the Heretics, who differ as widely 
from each other as they do from the Church; or among 
those who, having believed as we do, have deserted their 
original faith, and having been once our friends, are now 
our enemies 2 ." 

In the thirteenth Chapter, Tertullian lays down what 
he calls the rule of faith, Regula Fidel; and 3 promises to 
prove that it was delivered by Christ. In the fourteenth, 
he says, that all our enquiries into Scripture should be 
conducted with reference and in subordination to that Rule. 
But as the Heretics rested their whole cause upon an 
appeal to Scripture, asserting that their doctrine was de- 
rived from it, and that the rule of faith could only be 
found ex litteris Jidei, in those books which are of the faith, 
Tertullian proceeds, in the fifteenth and following chapters, 
to assign the reasons of which we have just given a sketch, 
why, in arguing with the Heretics, he declined all appeal to 
the Scriptures. 

Now, whatever may be the case with other Protestant 
Churches, I see nothing in Tertullian' s reasoning at variance 
with the maxims of the Church of England respecting the 
use of the Scriptures. Tertullian, according to the learned 
Translator, appeals to Apostolic Tradition — to a rule of faith, 

not 
2 cc. 9, 10, 11, 12. 
He fulfils this promise in cc. 20, 21. 



300 

controversy between the English and Romish 
Churches will be revived, and all the points in 

not originally deduced from Scripture, but delivered by 
the Apostles orally to the Churches which they founded, 
and regularly transmitted from them to his own time. How, 
I would ask, is this appeal inconsistent with the principles 
of the Church of England, which declares only that Holy 
Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation ? Respect- 
ing the source, from which the rule of faith was originally 
deduced, our Church is silent. The framers of our Articles 
meant not to deny that the rule of faith might, independ- 
ently of the Scriptures, have been faithfully transmitted in 
the Apostolic Churches down to Tertullian's time. What 
they meant to assert was, that the rule, so transmitted, con- 
tained no Article which was not either expressed in Scrip- 
ture, or might not be proved by it; and that the peculiar 
doctrines, in support of which the Roman Catholics appealed 
to Tradition, formed no part of the Apostolic rule. 

With respect also to the motives of Tertullian's appeal 
to Apostolic Tradition, I cannot think that the learned 
Translator is warranted in saying that Tertullian considered 
it as the only sure foundation of Christian faith, and ap- 
pealed to it as an authority paramount to Scripture. To 
me he appears to have appealed to it from necessity — be- 
cause he could not, from the nature of the dispute in which 
he was engaged, directly appeal to Scripture. The Heretics, 
with whom he was contending, not only proposed a dif- 
ferent rule of faith, but in defence of it produced a different 
set of Scriptures. How then was Tertullian to confute 
them ? By shewing that the faith which he professed, and 
the Scriptures to which he appealed, were, and had always 
been, the faith and Scriptures of those Churches, of which 
the origin could be traced to the Apostles — the first depo- 
sitaries of the faith. In this case, Tertullian had no alter- 
native: he was compelled to appeal to Apostolic Tradition. 
But when he is contending against Praxeas, a Heretic who 
acknowledged the Scriptures received by the Church, though 
he begins with laying down the rule of faith nearly in the 
same words as in the Tract de Praescriptione Haereticorum, 

yet 



301 

dispute again brought under review. Of those 
points none is more important than the ques- 

yet he conducts the controversy by a constant appeal to 
Scripture. Why indeed did Marcion think it necessary to 
compile a Gospel, if it was not usual for the contending 
parties even in his time to allege the authority of the 
written word, in support of their respective tenets? Let 
it be observed also, that in Tertullian's view of the sub- 
ject, the genuine Scriptures evidently formed a part of the 
Apostolic Tradition 4 . 

When again the learned Translator says that Ter- 
tullian dissuades his believing brother from entering into 
any Scriptural researches, he appears to me not to make 
due allowance for the vehemence of Tertullian's temper, 
and his disposition always to use the strongest expres- 
sions which occurred to him at the moment. In 5 the place 
referred to, he is manifestly addressing himself to ordi- 
nary Christians — to those who are unfitted by their talents 
and acquirements to engage in theological controversy. 
To them he says, " Adhere closely to the creed in which 
you have been instructed. If you read the Scriptures, and 
meet with difficulties, consult some doctor of the Church, 
who has made the Sacred Volume his peculiar study: or 
if you cannot readily have recourse to such a person, be 
content to be ignorant. It is faith that saves you, not fa- 
miliarity with the Scriptures. At any rate, do not go for 
a solution of your doubts to the Heretics, who confess by 
their continual enquiries that they are themselves in doubt." 
Tertullian's object in this passage manifestly is, to deter 
the unlearned Christian from curious researches which may 
lead him into error; and, as his custom is, he employs 
very strong language. But a writer, whose works teem 
with Scriptural quotations, could not deliberately intend to 
disparage Scriptural knowledge. 

* See adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 5. the whole object of which is to 
prove by an appeal to the Tradition preserved in the Apostolic Churches, 
that the Gospel of St. Luke used by the orthodox was genuine, that of 
Marcion spurious. 

s De Prsescriptione Hsereticorum, c. 14. 



302 

tion respecting Tradition ; and it is, therefore, 
most essential that they who stand forth as 
the defenders of the Church of England should 
take a correct and rational view of the sub- 
ject — the view in short which was taken by 
our divines at the Reformation. Nothing was 
more remote from their intention than indis- 
criminately to condemn all Tradition. 98 They 
knew that in strictness of speech Scripture is 
Tradition — written Tradition. They knew that, 
as far as external evidence is concerned, the 
Tradition preserved in the Church is the only 
ground on which the genuineness of the Books 
of Scripture can be established. For though 
we are not, upon the authority of the Church, 
bound to receive as Scripture any book, 
which contains internal evidence of its own 
spuriousness — such as discrepancies, contradic- 
tions of other portions of Scripture, idle fables, 
or precepts at variance with the great princi- 
ples of morality — yet no internal evidence is 
sufficient to prove a book to be Scripture, of 
which the reception, by a portion at least of 
the Church, cannot be traced from the earliest 

98 Tertullian uses the expression Scripta Traditio. De 
Corona, c. 3. In the Tract de Carne Christi, c. 2. speak- 
ing of the history of our Saviour's life and actions as 
delivered in Scripture, he says, " Si tantum Christianus es, 
crede quod traditum est ;" and again, " Porro quod traditum 
erat, id erat verum, ut ab iis traditum quorum fuit tradere." 



303 

period of its history to the present time. 
What our reformers opposed was the notion, 
that men must, upon the mere authority 
of Tradition, receive, as necessary to salva- 
tion, doctrines not contained in Scripture. 
Against this notion in general, they urged 
the incredibility of the supposition that the 
Apostles, when unfolding in their writings the 
principles of the Gospel, should have entirely 
omitted any doctrines essential to man's salva- 
tion. The whole tenor indeed of those writings, 
as well as of our Blessed Lord's discourses, runs 
counter to the supposition that any truths of 
fundamental importance would be suffered long 
to rest upon so precarious a foundation as 
that of oral Tradition. With respect to the 
particular doctrines, in defence of which the 
Roman Catholics appeal to Tradition, our re- 
formers contended that some were directly at 
variance with Scripture; and that others, far 
from being supported by an unbroken chain 
of Tradition from the Apostolic age, were of 
very recent origin, and utterly unknown to the 
early fathers. Such was the view of this im- 
portant question taken by our reformers. In 
this, as in other instances, they wisely adopted 
a middle course : they neither bowed submis- 
sively to the authority of Tradition, nor yet 
rejected it altogether. We in the present day 



304 

must tread in their footsteps and imitate their 
moderation, if we intend to combat our 
Roman Catholic adversaries with success. We 
must be careful that, in our anxiety to avoid 
one extreme, we run not into the other by 
adopting the extravagant language of those who, 
not content with ascribing a paramount autho- 
rity to the Written Word on all points per- 
taining to eternal salvation, talk as if the 
Bible — and that too the Bible in our English 
translation — were, independently of all external 
aids and evidence, sufficient to prove its own 
genuineness and inspiration, and to be its own 
interpreter. 

To return to Tertullian. In the passage 
to which "reference has just been made, he 
speaks both of written and unwritten Tradi- 
tion; but the cases in which he lays any 
stress upon the authority of the latter are pre- 
cisely those which 100 our reformers allowed to 

99 In the preceding note, from the Tract de Corona Mili- 
tis, c. 3. 

100 It is important to distinguish between traditional 
doctrines and traditional practices. Our Church receives no 
traditional doctrines — no doctrines, necessary to salvation, 
preserved through several ages by oral Tradition, and after- 
wards committed to writing; but it has a respect for tra- 
ditional practices : not, however, such a respect as to preclude 
it from examining their original reasonableness, and their 
suitableness to existing manners and circumstances. 



305 

be within its province — cases of ceremonies 
and ritual observances. 101 Of these he enu- 
merates several, for which no express warrant 
can be found in Scripture, and which must 
consequently have been derived solely from 
Tradition ; the forms, for instance, observed in 
baptism, in the administration of the Lord's 
Supper, and in public prayer. 102 Even in 
these cases he seems to have deemed it essen- 
tial to the validity of a traditional observance, 
that some satisfactory reason should be as- 
signed for its original institution; and when 
different observances have prevailed in differ- 
ent Churches, it is our duty, 103 he says, to 
enquire which of the two is more agreeable to 
the rule of life laid down by Scripture. In 
relation to the subject now treated of, there 
is only one point in which I discover any differ- 
ence of opinion between Tertullian and the 
framers of our Articles. He sometimes appears 

101 De Corona, cc. 3, 4. 

102 Rationem traditioni, et consuetudini, et fidei patroci- 
naturam aut ipse perspicies, aut ab aliquo qui perspexerit 
disces : interim nonnullara esse credes, cui debeatur obse- 
quium. De Corona, c. 4. Sed quia eorum quae ex traditione 
observantur tanto magis dignam rationem afferre debemus, 
quanto carent Scriptural auctoritate. De Jejuniis, c. 10. 
Non exploratis rationibus Traditionum. De Baptismo, c. 1. 

103 Tamen hie, sicut in omnibus varie institutis et dubiis 
et incertis fieri solet, adhibenda fuit examinatio, quae magis 
ex duabus tarn diversis consuetudinibus disciplinae Dei con- 
veniret. De Virginibus velandis, c. 2. 

U 



306 

to contend that an uniformity of ceremonies 
ought to be maintained in all the 104 particu- 
lar Churches, of which the visible Church is 
composed ; and that any Church, which breaks 
this uniformity, divides the body of Christ. 

105 Our Church, on the contrary, though it 
asserts that every individual member of a 
Church is bound to comply with the observ- 
ances ordained in it by competent authority ; 
yet, availing itself of that liberty in things in- 
different which the Apostle of the Gentiles 
allows, declares that " Traditions and ceremonies 
need not be in all places one and utterly 
like : but may be changed according to the 
diversities of countries, times, and men's man- 
ners," with this single proviso, " that nothing 
be ordained against God's word." Our author, 
however, is not always consistent with himself; 

106 for in another place he speaks as if it were 

104 Non possumus respuere consuetudinem, quam damnare 
non possumus, utpote non extraneam, quia non extraneorum, 
cum quibus scilicet communicamus jus pacis et nomen frater- 
nitatis. Una nobis et illis fides, unus Deus, idem Christus, 
eadem spes, eadem lavacri Sacramenta. Semel dixerim, 
una Ecclesia sumus. Ita nostrum ^est, quodcunque nostro- 
rum est. Caeterum dividis corpus. De Virginibus velandis, 
c. 2. 

105 Article 34,. 

106 Annon putas omni Jldeli licere concipere et constituere, 
duntaxat quod Deo congruat, quod discipline conducat, quod 
saluti proficiat ? dicente Domino, cur autem non et a vobis 
ipsis quod justum est judicatis ? et non de judicio tantum, 
sed de omni sententia rerum examinandarum, De Corona, 

c. 4. 



307 

lawful, not merely for every Church, but for. 
every Christian to appoint observances ; if they 
are but agreeable to the Word of God, tend 
to promote a Christian temper and life, and 
are profitable unto salvation. Before we quit 
the subject of Tradition, we must, in justice 
to Tertullian, remark, that when, in opposition 
to the Tradition of the Church, he contended 
for the reception of the new discipline of Mon- 
tanus, he was not chargeable with inconsist- 
ency : since, conceiving as he did that Mon- 
tanus was divinely inspired, he conceived him 
to possess at least equal authority with the 
Apostles themselves. 

We will now proceed to enquire what in- 
formation the writings of Tertullian supply 
respecting the canon of Scripture. His quo- 
tations include all the Books of the Old Testa- 
ment, excepting Ruth, the two Books of 
Chronicles, the Book of Nehemiah, and the 
prophecies of Obadiah and Haggai. Of the 
apocryphal books he quotes Judith, Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus ; 107 Baruch under the name of 



c 4. Tertullian in this passage could scarcely mean to 
assert that observances appointed by one individual were obli- 
gatory upon others. 

107 Scorpiace, c. 8 The quotation is from the sixth Chap- 
ter, which is called in our Bibles the Epistle of Jeremiah. 

U 2 



308 

Jeremiah ; 108 the Song of the three Children 
under the name of Daniel; the Stories of 
109 Susannah and of no Bell and the Dragon, and 
the first Book of Maccabees. m He quotes all 
the books of the New Testament, excepting 
the second Epistle of St. Peter, the third of 
St. John, and perhaps the 112 Epistle of St. 
James; for we concur in 113 Lardner's opinion 
that there is sufficient ground for believing 
some words to have dropped out, towards the 
conclusion of the fifth Book against Marcion, 
which contained a reference to the Epistle to 
Philemon. The reader will find, in 114 the 
fourth Book against Marcion, some valuable 
remarks upon the genuineness and integrity of 

108 Cui etiam manimalia et incorporalia laudes canunt 
apud Danielem. Adv. Hermogenem, c. 44. 

109 De Corona, c. 4. 

110 De Idololatria, c. 18. De Jejuniis, c. 7. sub fine. 

111 In the Index locorum ex Scripturis Sacris, annexed 
to the Paris edition, the second (or fourth) Book of Esdras and 
the second Book of Maccabees occur ; but the supposed quota- 
tions are of a very doubtful character. The former is pro- 
bably referred to in the first Book de Cultu Fceminarum, 
c. 3. 

112 See Lardner, Credibility, c. 27- Sect. 11. 

113 Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 27. Rigault 
thinks that there is an allusion to the Epistle to Philemon 
in the following passage from the Tract adv. Valentinianos, 
Et forsitan parias aliquem Onesimum iEonem, c. 32. St. 
Paul speaks of Onesimus as his son, begotten by him, 
v. 10. 

114 cc. 2, 3, 4, 5. In c. 5. the Apocalypse is ascribed to 
St. John. 



309 

the Gospels. 115 Tertullian states St. Luke to. 
have been the author of the Acts of the 
Apostles. The account which Tertullian gives 
of the Septuagint translation is, that Ptolemy 
Philadelphus, at the suggestion of Demetrius 
Phalereus, obtained a copy of the Hebrew 
Scriptures, in order to place it in his library ; 
and afterwards caused it to be translated by 
seventy-two interpreters, who were sent to him 
by the Jews for that purpose. This Tertul- 
lian states on the authority of Aristaeus or 
Aristeas; and adds that the 116 Hebrew copy 
was preserved in his own time, in the temple 
of Serapis, at Alexandria. He evidently sup- 
posed that the translators executed their work 
under the influence of divine inspiration. It 
is unnecessary to detail the reasons which 
have induced the majority of learned men to 
treat the narrative of Aristseus as a fable. 
117 We will content ourselves with observing 

us p orro q Uum i n eodem commentario Lucae. De Jeju- 
niis, c. 10. The allusion is to the second Chapter of Acts. 

116 Tertullian must have been mistaken in conceiving that 
the Hebrew copy was extant in his day, if, as Gibbon tells us, 
the old library of the Ptolemies was totally consumed in 
Caesar's Alexandrian war. Chap, xxviii. note 41. 

117 Thus in citing Isaiah v. 18. Tertullian, de Pcenitentia, 
c. 11. reads, Vae illis qui delicta sua velut procero fune 
nectunt; conformably to the Septuagint, ova\ ol eirKnrwfxevoi 
tcc? dfxaprla^ w? a-^oiviw fxaKpta. Jerome in agreement with the 
Hebrew reads, Vae qui trahitis iniquitatem in funiculis vanitatis. 



310 

that Tertullian, in quoting the Old Testa- 
ment, appears either himself to have translated 
from the Greek; or to have used a Latin 
version made from the Greek, not from the 
Hebrew. 

Tertullian 118 quotes, more than once, the 
prophecy of Enoch. In 119 one place he admits 
that it was not received into the Jewish 
canon; but supposes that the Jews rejected it 
merely because they were unable to account 
for its having survived the deluge. He ar- 
gues, therefore, that Noah might have received 
it from his great-grandfather Enoch, and 
handed it down to his posterity ; or if it was 
actually lost at the deluge, Noah might have 
restored it from immediate revelation, 120 as 
Ezra restored the whole Jewish Scripture. 
" Perhaps," he adds, ." the Jews reject it because 
it contains a prediction of Christ's advent; 
at any rate the reference to it made by the 
Apostle Jude ought to quiet all our doubts 

118 De Idololatria, c. 15. De Cultu Fceminarum, L. ii. 
c. 10. 

119 Scio Scripturam Enoch, quae hunc ordinem Angelis 
dedit, non recipi a quibusdam, quia nee in armarium Judaicum 
admittitur. De Cultu Foeminarurn, L. i. c. 3. 

120 \y e are not certain whether Tertullian borrowed this 
statement respecting the restoration of the Hebrew Scriptures 
from the Apocryphal Book of Esdras xiv. 21. or drew an in- 
ference from Nehemiah viii. 



311 

respecting its genuineness." For a more detailed 
account of this book we refer the reader to the 
dissertation, prefixed by m Dr. Laurence to his 
translation of the Book of Enoch the Prophet, 
from an Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian library. 

Such of our readers as are acquainted with 
the late Professor Porson's Letters to Arch- 
deacon Travis will remember the Archdea- 
con's interpretation of an expression used by 
Tertullian, when speaking of the Apostolic 
Churches. m " Percurre Ecclesias Apostolicas, 
apud quas ipsee adhuc Cathedras Apostolorum 
suis locis praesident, apud quas ipsa? Authen- 
ticas Literas eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem 
et repreesentantes faciem uniuscuj usque." By 
the words authenticce literce the Archdeacon 
understood Tertullian to mean the autographs 
of the Apostles. If, however, we turn to the 
123 Tract de Monogamia, we find our author, 

121 Now Lord Archbishop Cashel. The work was pub- 
lished at Oxford in 1821/ 

122 De Prsescriptione Haereticorum, c. 36. 

123 c. 11. The passage is 1 Cor. vii. 39. The MSS. now 
extant lend no countenance to Tertullian's assertion. Does 
not, however, the assertion prove that a Latin Version was 
actually extant in his time, in opposition to Semler's notion 
stated in Chap. II. note 38 ? See Lardner, Credibility, c. 27. 
Sect. 19. The following passage in the Tract against Praxeas 
seems to remove all doubts on the subject. Ideoque jam 
in usu est nostrorum, per simplicitatem interpretationis, Ser- 
monem dicere in primordio apud Deum fuisse, c. 5. 



312 

after he has given the Latin version of a pas- 
sage, stating that it was differently read in 
Greeco authentico ; that is, in the original Greek, 
as contradistinguished from a translation. In 
like manner he uses the expressions 124 originalia 
instrumenta Christi; originale instrumentum 
Moysi ; meaning of course, not an autograph 
either of Christ or Moses, but the Gospels and 
the Pentateuch, as they were originally written. 
125 Berriman, therefore, and others suppose that 
Tertullian by the words authenticce Uteres meant 
only the genuine unadulterated Epistles. 
126 Lardner conceives that our author intended 
to appeal, not to the Epistles which St. Paul 
addressed to the particular Churches mentioned 
by Tertullian ; but to all the Scriptures of 
the New Testament, of which the Apostolic 
Churches were peculiarly the depositaries. But 
Lardner's argument is, in my opinion, founded 
on a misapprehension of Tertullian's immediate 
object in the passage in question. He there 
appeals to the Apostolic Churches as bearing 

124 De Carne Christi, c. 2. Adv. Hermogenem, c. 19. 

125 Tertullian says of Valentinus, de Ecclesia authenticce 
regulse abrupit, he separated himself from the Church which 
possessed the genuine rule of life. Adv. Valentinianos, c. 4. 
In another place he says of our Saviour, ipse authenticus Pon- 
tifex Dei Patris. He was the true, the original priest, of 
whom the priests under the Mosaic law were only copies. 
Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 35. 

126 Credibility of the Gospel History, c. 27. 



313 

witness, not to the genuineness and integrity of 
the Scriptures, but to the true and uncorrupted 
doctrine of the Gospel. For this he tell us that 
we must look to those Churches which were 
founded by the Apostles, and were able to pro- 
duce the authority of epistles addressed to 
them by the Apostles. The words llterce au- 
thentic^ may, therefore, mean, epistles pos- 
sessing authority. It is, however, of little con- 
sequence to which of the above meanings we 
give the preference ; since the whole passage 
is evidently nothing more than a declama- 
tory mode of stating the weight which Ter- 
tuilian attached to the authority of the Apo- 
stolic Churches. To infer from it that the 
very chairs in which the Apostles sat, or 
that the very Epistles which they wrote, then 
actually existed at Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, 
&c. would be only to betray a total ignorance 
of Tertullian's style. 

Tertullian 127 expressly ascribes the Epistle 

127 De Pudicitiit, c. 20. Extat enim et Barnabae titulus 
ad Hebraeos : adeo satis auctoritatis viro, ut quern Paulus 
juxta se constituerit in abstinentiae tenore : aut ego solus et 
Barnabas non habemus hoc operandi potestatem? Et utique 
receptior apud Ecclesias Epistola Barnabae illo apocrypho 
Pastore mcechorum. Tertullian then proceeds to quote a pas- 
sage from the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
Lardner thinks it doubtful whether Tertullian's works contain 
any other allusion to the Epistle. 



314 

to the Hebrews to Barnabas: he does not 
say that it was universally received in the 
Church, but that it was more generally re- 
ceived than the Shepherd of Hernias. He 
128 mentions also a work falsely ascribed to St. 
Paul, but composed by an Asiatic presbyter, 
who was impelled, as he himself confessed, 
to commit the pious fraud by admiration of 
the Apostle. The work appears to have been 
quoted in defence of a custom which had crept 
in of allowing females to baptise. 

In speaking of the mode in which the 
canon of the New Testament was formed, 
129 Lardner says, that it was not determined 
by the authority of councils. This may in 
one sense be true. Yet it appears from a 
passage in the Tract de Pudicitia, 130 referred 
to in a former Chapter, that in Tertullian's 
time one part of the business of councils was 
to decide what books were genuine, and what 
spurious; for he appeals to the decisions 

128 De Baptismo, c. 17- sub fine. Jerome, Catalogus Scrip- 
torum Ecclesiasticorum under St. Luke. He appears to have 
supposed that the work in question was entitled the Travels 
of Paul and Thecla. 

129 History of the Apostles and Evangelists, e. 3. 

130 Chap. iv. note 51. Sed cederem tibi, si Scriptura Pas- 
toris, quae sola mcechos amat, divino instrumento meruisset 
incidi : si non ab omni concilio Ecclesiarum etiam vestrarum 
inter apocrypha et falsa judicaretur, c. 10. 



315 

of councils in support of his rejection of the. 
Shepherd of Hernias. m We have seen that 
Tertullian appeals to the original Greek text 
of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. This 
fact appears to militate strongly against the 
theory of the author of a recent work en- 
titled PalcEoromaica, who asserts that t}ie said 
Epistle, as well as the greater part of the New 
Testament, was originally written in Latin. 

When we contrast the acuteness which the 
anonymous author of that work occasionally, 
and the extensive reading which he always 
displays, with the extraordinary conclusions at 
which he arrives, we are strongly tempted to 
suspect that he is only playing with his 
readers; and trying how far intrepid assertion 
will go towards inducing men to lend a 
favourable ear to the most startling para- 
doxes. To take a single instance from the 
Epistle just mentioned. His solution of the 
celebrated difficulty respecting the power which, 
132 according to St. Paul, a woman ought to 
have on her head, is — that 133 in the original 
Latin the word was habitus, which the ig- 

131 See note 123. 132 1 Cor. xi. 10. 

133 Supplement to Palaeoromaica, p. 61. note 5. The author 
does not inform us how the word habitus came to be 
translated etymologically ij-owia ; does he mean that the 
translator confounded e£<? and e£ovaia> 



316 

norant translator rendered etymologically e^ovaia. 
In support of this fancy he quotes the follow- 
ing words from Tertullian's Treatise de Virgi- 
nibus velandis, c. 3. " O sacrilegae manus, quae 
dicatum Deo habitum (the veil) detrahere 
potuerunt !" — meaning his readers to infer that 
Tertullian found habitus in the verse in ques- 
tion ; but omitting to inform them that it is 
134 twice quoted by Tertullian in this very 
Tract, and that in both instances the reading 
is potestas. That the omission proceeded, not 
from inadvertence, but design, is, we think, 
rendered certain by the still more extraordinary 
solution subjoined by the author, that vestitus 
was the original reading; which, when pro- 
nounced by a Jew, might easily be confounded 
wi^h potestas. It is impossible that the author 
could be serious in throwing out either of 
these conjectures. 

We will mention one other argument of 
a more plausible character, alleged by the au- 
thor in support of his theory. 135 The author 
contends that the very titles of the existing 

Greek gospels, to evayyeXiov /caret MarOaiov, /cara 

AovKav 9 prove them to be translations. The 
Version of the Septuagint was called /caret 

134 cc. 7- 17. 

135 Supplement to Palseoromaica, p. 3. note % 



317 

roi)e 'EfiSowKovTct, that of Aquila Kara 'AicvXdv. § 

But why does he stop short in his inference? 
If the argument proves any thing, it proves, 
not merely that the existing Greek gospels 
were translations, but also that Matthew, Luke, 
&c. were the translators. The true answer 
however is, that the force of the preposition 
Kara depends entirely upon the word with 
which it is connected. The title to evayyekiov 
Kara MarOalov means "the glad tidings of sal- 
vation as delivered by St. Matthew:" or as 
paraphrased by Hammond, "That story of 
Christ which Matthew compiled and set down." 
For though the word evayyeXiov was employed 
at a very early period to signify 136 a written 
book, yet it continued to be used in its pri- 
mitive meaning ; as by Tertullian, when he calls 

137 St. Matthew, fidelissimus Evangelii commen- 
tator, the most faithful expositor of the life 
and doctrine of Christ. We will take this 
opportunity of remarking, that our author, in 
speaking of the Scriptures, sometimes calls them 

138 Instrumentum, sometimes Testamentum ; but 

136 See de Res. Carnis, c 33. De Carne Christi, c. 7. Adv. 
Marcionem, L. i. c. 1. L. iv. cc. 1. 3. L. v. 1. Scorpiace, c. 2. 

137 De Carne Christi, c. 22. See also de Res. Carnis, c. 33. 
The word commentator is similarly used adv. Marcionem, 
L. iv. c. 2. 

138 Vetus Instrumentum. Apology, c. 47- Ex instrumento 
divinarum Scripturarum. Adv. Judaeos, c. 1 . The two words 
are joined together adv. Praxeam, c. 20. Instrumentum 
utriusque testamenti. 



318 

says on 159 one occasion that the latter term 
was in more general use. He calls them also 
140 Digesta. 

Some 141 learned men have contended that 
the Epistle, which in our Bibles is inscribed 
to the Ephesians, should be entitled to the 
Laodiceans. Tertullian 142 in one place says, 
that the Heretics alone gave it that title ; 143 in 
another, that Marcion had at one time mani- 
fested an intention to alter the title of the 
Epistle. Semler's inference is that some of 
the Epistles were without inscriptions, and 
received in consequence a variety of titles. 

There are in Tertullian, as well as in the 
other Fathers, quotations purporting to be 
taken from Scripture, but which cannot be 
found in our present copies. Thus in the 

139 Alterum alterius instruments vel (quod magis usui 
est dicere) testamenti. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 1. 

140 Et inde sunt nostra digesta. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. 
c. 2. Si quid in Sanctis offenderunt digestis. Apology, c. 47. 

141 Lardner. History of the Apostles and Evangelists, 
c. 13. 

142 Praetereo hie et de alia epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios 
perscriptam habemus; Haeretici vero ad Laodicenos. Adv. 
Marcionem, L. v. c. 11. 

143 Ecclesiae quidem veritate, Epistolam istam ad Ephe- 
sios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos: sed Marcion ei 
titulum aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto dili- 
gentissimus explorator. Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 17, 



319 

Tract de Idololatria, c. 20. Nam sicut scriptum 
est ecce homo et facta ejus, ita, H4 ex ore tuo 
justificaberis. The commentators have not been 
able to trace the former of the two quo- 
tations, and some suppose it to have been 
taken from the book of Enoch. 145 0n three 
different occasions Tertullian quotes the words 
Dominus regnavit a ligno as a portion of the 
tenth verse of the 95th (or 96th) Psalm ; from 
which, according to Justin Martyr, the words 
corresponding to a ligno had been erased by the 
Jews. In the Tract de Carne Christi, c. 23. 
we find the following sentence: Legimus qui- 
dem apud Ezechielem de vacca ilia, " quce pepe- 
rit et non peperit;" the words are also quoted 
by 146 Clemens Alexandrinus, but he does not 
refer to any particular portion of Scripture. 
In the 147 Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis, 
Tertullian says, Cautum in Levitico, Sacerdotes 
mei non plus nubent; but the 148 prohibition, as 
it stands in our Bibles, is that a Priest shall 
not marry a widow or divorced female. Ter- 
tullian's writings afford many exemplifications 
of the justice of Porson's remarks respecting the 

144 Matthew xii. 37- 

145 Adv. Judseos, cc. 10. 13. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 19. 
See Thirlby's note on Justin Martyr against Trypho, p. 298. D. 

146 Strom. L. vii. p. 890. Ed. Potter. See Porson's Letters 
to Travis, p. 275. 

147 c. 7- Compare de Monogamia, c. 7- 

148 Leviticus xxi. 7- 13, 14. 



320 

want of correctness and precision observable 
in the quotations of the Fathers from the 
Scriptures. 149 He sometimes refers his readers 
to one part of Scripture for passages which 
belong to another; and he so mixes up the 
quotations with his own words, that it is diffi- 
cult to distinguish between them. The 15 ° con- 
sequence has been that his inferences and 
explanations have been mistaken for various 
readings; and have in some instances found 
their way into the text of the Sacred Volume. 151 

We proceed to the seventh Article; on 
which it will be sufficient to remark that — as 
the Heretical opinions of Marcion were founded 
on the notion that the God, who' created the 
world and gave the law, was opposed to the 
Supreme God — he maintained as a necessary- 
consequence, that the Old Testament was con- 
trary to the New : — our author, therefore, 
who undertakes to confute him, 152 must have 

149 Thus in the Scorpiace, c. 13. a passage extant in the 
first chapter of the Epistle to the Philippians, is quoted 
as from the Epistles to the Thessalonians. 

150 See an instance in Porson's Letters to Travis, p. 273. 
or in Sender's Dissertation, Sect. 9. 

151 The author might have produced numerous other instances 
in confirmation of the statements made in this paragraph ; 
but he was unwilling to swell the bulk of the volume. 

152 See particularly adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 11. where 
are some judicious observations respecting the relation in 
which the Law stands to the Gospel. 



321 

held that the two Testaments were not at 
variance. 

We 155 have seen that Tertullian, when 
arguing against the Heretics, uniformly re- 
presents the rule of faith maintained in the 
Apostolic Churches to be the same which the 
Apostles originally delivered. He does not 
indeed state that they compiled any creed or 
public declaration of belief, to which all the 
members of the Church were bound to give 
their assent. 154 But in the commencement of 
the Tract de Virginibus Velandis, he describes 
what he calls the one, fixed, unchangeable 
rule of faith; which will be found to contain 
nearly all the articles of what is now termed 
the Apostles' Creed. Those which are there 
wanting may be supplied, either from another 
summary of faith 155 in . the second chapter of 

153 Chap. iv. note xi. 

154 Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis 
et irreformabilis, credendi scilicet in unicum Deum omni- 
potentem, mundi conditorem, et Filium ejus Iesum Christum, 
natum ex Virgine Maria, crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertio 
die resuscitatum a mortuis, receptum in coelis, sedentem 
nunc ad dexteram Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mor- 
tuos per carnis etiam resurrectionem. Compare de Praescrip- 
tione Hsereticorum, c. 13. 

155 Nos vero, et semper, et nunc magis ut instructiores 
per Paracletum, deductorem scilicet omnis veritatis, unicum 
quidem Deum credimus ; sub hac tamen dispensatione, quam 
olKovofxlav dicimus, ut unici Dei sit et Alius, Sermo ipsius, 
qui ex ipso processerit, per quern omnia facta sunt et sine 

X quo 



322 

the Tract against Praxeas, or from detached 
passages of our author's writings. Thus the 
conception by the Holy Ghost is stated in the 
Treatise against Praxeas, c. 27. Certe enim de 
Spiritu Sancto Virgo concepit: and we have 
seen in our remarks on the third Article, that 
Tertullian believed the doctrine of Christ's 
descent into hell. 156 Schlitingius indeed con- 
tended, on the authority of the passage just 
quoted from the Tract de Virginibus velandis, 
that a belief in the Holy Ghost formed no 
part of the faith required from a Christian in 
the time of Tertullian; but the whole tenor 
of the Tract against Praxeas confutes the 
assertion, and proves that the divinity of the 
Holy Ghost was then received as one of the 
doctrines of the Church. With respect to the 
next clause — the Holy Catholic Church — by 
which I understand, with Pearson, 157 a visible 

quo factum est nihil. Hunc missum a Patre in Virginem, 
et ex eh natum, hominem et Deum, filium hominis et filium 
Dei, et cognominatum Iesum Christum. Hunc passuni, 
hunc mortuum et sepultum secundum Scripturas, et resus- 
citatum a Patre, et in ccelos resumptum, sedere ad dexteram 
Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos. Qui exinde 
miserit, secundum promissionem suam, a Patre Spiritum 
Sanctum, Paracletum, Sanctificatorem fidei eorum, qui credunt 
in Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum. Hanc regulam 
ab initio Evangelii decucurrisse, &c. See also, cap. ult. Si 
non exinde Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, tres crediti, 
unum Deum sistunt. 

15(5 Pearson on the Creed, Article viii. p. 307- 
157 Article ix. p. 339. Tertullian, however, speaks some- 
times 



Church on earth— Tertullian repeatedly speaks 
of a Church, which was founded by the 158 Apo- 
stles, especially by 159 St. Peter, according to 
the promise made by Christ to him, and is 
composed of all the Christian communities 
throughout the world, 160 which are united by 
the profession of a common faith, by the 
same hope in Christ Jesus, and by the same 
sacrament of baptism. To this Church Ter- 
tullian applies also the term 161 Catholica. Of 
the doctrine contained in the next clause of 
the Apostles' Creed, — The Communion of 
Saints — -as it is explained by Pearson, I find 
no traces in Tertullian's writings ; and with 
respect to the remission of sins, 162 we have 
seen that, though after he became a Mon- 
tanist he denied to the Church the power 

times of a heavenly or invisible Church. Emissa de ccelis, ubi 
Ecclesia est area figurata. De Baptismo, c. 8. Una Ecclesia 
in ccelis, c. 15. Jam tunc de mundo in Ecclesiam. Adv. Mar- 
cionem, L. ii. c. 4. Here, however, the expression is ambi- 
guous ; it may mean the transition from Paganism to Christianity 
Apud Veram et Catholicam Hierusalem, &c. L. iii. c. 22. 

158 In Ecclesiam, quam nondum Apostoli struxerant. 
De Baptismo, c. 11. 

159 In ipso Ecclesia extructa est, id est, per ipsum. De 
Pudicitia, c. 21. 

160 Una nobis et illis fides, unus Deus, idem Christus, 
eadem spes, eadem lavacri Sacramenta. De Virginibus 
velandis, c. 2. 

161 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, cc. 26. 30. 

162 Chap. IV. p. 254. 

x 2 



324 

of forgiving certain sins in this life, he still 
supposed that the offender might, through the 
blood of Christ, upon sincere repentance obtain 
pardon in the life to come. The inference, 
therefore, to be drawn from a comparison of 
different passages scattered through Tertul- 
lian's writings is, that the Apostles' Creed in 
its present form was not known to him as a 
summary of faith ; but that the various clauses 
of which it is composed were generally re- 
ceived as articles of faith by orthodox Christ- 
ians. When we come to speak of the Tract 
against Praxeas, we shall have an opportunity 
of ascertaining how far the opinions of our 
author coincided with the language employed 
in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. 

We proceed to the ninth Article of our 
Church— on Original Sin — a subject on which 
we must not expect Tertullian to speak with 
the same precision of language which was 
used by those who wrote after the Pelagian 
controversy had arisen. 163 In describing the 

163 Per quern (Satanam) homo a priraordio circumventus 
ut praeceptum Dei excederet, et propterea in mortem datus, 
exinde totum genus de suo semine infectum suae etiam dam- 
nations traducem fecit. De Testimonio Animae, c. 3. Homo 
damnatur ad mortem ob unius arbusculae delibationem, et 
exinde proficiunt delicta cum pcenis, et pereunt jam omnes, 
qui Paradisi nullum cespitem norunt. Adv. Marcionem, 
L. i. c. 22. 



325 

cause and consequences of Adam's fall, he says 
that our first parent, having been seduced into 
disobedience by Satan, was delivered over unto 
death ; and transmitted his condemnation to 
the whole human race, which was infected 
from his seed. The effect of this condemna- 
tion was to involve mankind in sin as well 
as in punishment. 164 In our account of the 
Treatise de Anima, we stated that our author 
expressed his approbation of the Platonic divi- 
sion of the soul into rational and irrational. 
According to him, the rational was its natural, 
original character, as it was created by God: 
the irrational was introduced by Satan, and 
has since been wrought so completely into the 
soul, as to have become as it were its natural 
character. 165 In the same Tract he says also 
that every soul is numbered in Adam, until, 
being born of water and the Spirit, it is num- 
bered anew in Christ. He does not, however, 
appear to have admitted a total corruption of 
man's nature. 166 " Besides the evil," he says, 

164 c. 16. Compare c. 11, where Tertullian speaks of 
Adam's soul. 

165 Ita omnis anima eo usque in Adam censetur, donee 
in Christo recenseatur, c. 40. In the Tract de Patientia, c. 5. 
Tertullian says that the sin of Adam consisted in impatience, 
i. e. under the commandment of God ; but in the Tract 
de Pudicitia, c. 6. he ascribes the fall to what the Apostle 
terms the lust of the eye (1 John ii. 16.). 

166 De Anima, c. 41. 



326 

" which the soul contracts from the interven- 
tion of the wicked Spirit, there is an ante- 
cedent, and in a certain sense natural evil, 
arising from its corrupt origin. For, as we 
have already observed, the corruption of our 
nature is another nature ; having its proper 
God and Father, namely the author of that 
corruption. Still there is a portion of good in 
the soul ; of that original, divine, and genuine 
good, which is its proper nature. For that 
which is derived from God is rather obscured, 
than extinguished. It may be obscured, be- 
cause it is not God: but it cannot be extin- 
guished, because it emanates from God. As, 
therefore, light, when intercepted by an opake 
body, still remains, though it is not seen: so 
the good in the soul, being weighed down 
by the evil, is either not seen at all, or is par- 
tially and occasionally visible. Men differ 
widely in their moral characters, yet the souls 
of all form but one genus : 167 in the worst 
there is something good; in the best there is 
something bad. For God alone is without sin ; 
and the only man without sin is Christ, since 
Christ is God. Thus the divine nature of the 
soul bursts forth in prophetic anticipations, the 
consequences of its original good: and con- 
scious of its origin it bears testimony to God, 
167 Compare adv. Marcionem, L. ii. c. 23. 



327 

its author, in exclamations like these — Deus 
homes est, Deus videt, Deo commendo. As no 
soul is without sin, neither is any without the 
seeds of good. Moreover when the soul em- 
braces the true faith, being renewed in its 
second birth by water and the power from 
above, then the veil of its former corruption 
being taken away, it beholds the light in all 
its brightness. As in its first birth it was 
received by the unholy, in its second it is re- 
ceived by the Holy Spirit. The flesh follows 
the soul now wedded to the Spirit, as a part 
of the bridal portion ; no longer the servant 
of the soul, but of the Spirit. O happy mar- 
riage, if no violation of the marriage vow 
takes place !" 

The language of the passages now cited 
appears to differ little from that of our Arti- 
cle. 168 The original state of Adam was a state 
of righteousness : in his nature, as he was cre- 
ated, good was the pervading principle, good 
immediately derived from God and akin to 
the divine goodness ; or as Tertullian expresses 
himself on another occasion, 169 the original 

168 De Pudicitia, c. 9. Tertullian speaking of the pro- 
digal son says, Recordatur Patris Dei, satisfacto redit, 
vestem pristinam recipit, statum scilicet eum quern Adam 
transgressus amiserat. Compare de Monogamia, c. 5. 

169 Recipit enim ilium Dei Spiritum, quern tunc de afflatu 
ejus acceperat, scd post amiserat per delictum. De Baptismo, 

c. 5. 



328 

righteousness of Adam consisted in a partici- 
pation in the Spirit of God, which he lost 
by his transgression. 17 ° The effect of his trans- 
gression has been to make his offspring the 
heirs of his condemnation — to entail upon them 
a corruption of nature, from which no man 
born into the world is exempt, and for which 
there is no other remedy than to be born again 
by water and the Holy Spirit. Although, 
therefore, Tertullian denies that the corruption 
of man's nature is total, and that the seeds of 
good are altogether extinguished in it: yet he 
expressly states that man cannot by his own 
efforts restore himself to the favour of God, 
but requires that his soul should be renewed 
by grace from above. Had our author ad- 
mitted the total corruption of human nature — 
had he used the language which is sometimes 

c. 5. Tertullian' s notion here seems to be, that God made 
man in his image, that is, in the form which Christ was 
to bear during his residence on earth ; this image man retained 
after the fall. (Compare adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 8. sub in.) 
But God also made man after his likeness, that is, immortal ; 
this likeness man lost at the fall, but it is restored to him 
in baptism through the Holy Spirit. In the second Book 
against Marcion, c. 2. Tertullian applies to Adam at the 
time of his transgression, the term homo animalis, that is, 
without the Spirit of God, as opposed to spiritalis. 

170 See de Jejuniis, c. 3. where speaking of the effects 
of Adam's fall, Tertullian says, in me quoque cum ipso 
genere transductam. So in the Tract de Exhortatione Cas- 
titatis, c. 2. Semini enim tuo respondeas necesse esse. See 
also de Pudicitia, c. 6. 



329 

used in our own day, that man is wholly 
the offspring of the devil — his adversary Mar- 
cion might have turned round upon him and 
said, " This is my doctrine, for I affirm that 
man was made by a being distinct from the 
supreme God and at variance with him." 

It 171 must, however, be admitted that there 
is, in the Tract de Baptismo, a passage which 
seems to imply a denial of the doctrine of origi- 
nal sin. Tertullian recommends delay in admi- 
nistering the rite of baptism, particularly in the 
case of children ; and asks, m " why should the 
age of innocence (infancy) be in haste to obtain 
the remission of sins?" Here is an evident in- 
consistency. 173 The passages which we have 
already cited prove that our author was strongly 
impressed with the conviction that baptism is 
necessary, in order to relieve mankind from the 
injurious consequences of Adam's fall. We 
might, therefore, reasonably have expected to 
find him a strenuous advocate of infant bap- 
tism. As we shall have occasion to recur to 
this passage when we come to treat of the 
rites and ceremonies of the Church, we shall 
say nothing more respecting it at present. 

171 c. 18. 

172 The expression innocens oetas occurs again in the fourth 
Book against Marcion, c. 23. See also de Anima, c. 56. sub fine. 

173 See particularly the passage quoted in note 165. 



330 

We will take this opportunity of noticing 
two strange opinions of Tertullian. 174 0ne is, 
that the prohibition given to Adam in Para- 
dise contained in it all the precepts of the 
decalogue ;— 175 the other, that Eve was a vir- 
gin when tempted by the serpent — an asser- 
tion which he does not attempt to reconcile 
with the divine blessing, " Be fruitful and 
multiply." It marks, however, his strong dis- 
position to exaggerate the merit of a life of 
celibacy. 

Tertullian's notions on free-will — the sub- 
ject of the tenth Article of our Church — may 
be collected from a passage in his 176 Treatise 
de Anima. He is arguing against the Valen- 
tinians ; who maintained that men were of 
three kinds, spiritual, animal, and terrestrial — 
and that, as this distinction took place at their 
birth, it was consequently immutable : — as a 
thorn cannot produce figs, or a thistle grapes, 
an animal man cannot produce the works of 
the Spirit ; or the contrary. " If this were so," 
answers Tertullian, u God could neither out of 
stones raise up sons to Abraham, nor could 

174 Adv. Judaeos, c. 2. 

175 De Carne Christi, c. 17- Compare de Monogamia, 
c. 5. Christus innuptus in totum, quod etiam primus Adam 
ante exilium. 

176 c. 21, partly quoted in chap. III. note 45. 



331 

the generation of vipers bring forth the fruits 
of repentance; and the Apostle was in error 
when he wrote, Ye were once darkness, and we 
also were once by nature the children of wrath, 
and ye were of the same number, but now ye 
have been washed. The declarations of Scrip- 
ture are never at variance with each other : — 
a bad tree will not produce good fruit, unless 
a graft is made upon it ; and a good tree will 
bring forth bad fruit, unless it is cultivated; 
and stones will become the sons of Abraham, 
if they are formed into the faith of Abraham ; 
and the generation of vipers will bring forth 
the fruits of repentance, if they cast out the 
poison of a malignant nature. Such is the 
power of divine grace; being stronger than 
nature, and having subject to itself the free 
power of the will within us, which the Greeks 
call 177 avre^ovo-iov. This power is natural and 
changeable ; consequently in what direction 
soever it turns, the nature (of man) turns in that 
direction with it. For we have already shewn 
that man possesses by nature freedom of will." 
178 On another occasion, Tertullian is disputing 

177 Tertullian appears not to have held the notion of a 
self-determining power of the will: for he speaks of it as 
determined by something extraneous. Nam et voluntas 
poterit necessitas contendi : habens scilicet unde cogatur. De 
Corona, c. 11. 

178 Adv. Marcionem, L. ii. cc. 5, 6, 1, 8. Compare 
cc. 10. 25. 



332 

with Marcion, who contended that the fall 
of Adam was irreconcileable with the attri- 
butes of God; who must be deemed deficient 
either in goodness if he willed, in prescience 
if he did not foresee, or in power if he did 
not prevent it. Our author answers that the 
cause of Adam's fall must be sought, not in 
the attributes of God 5 but in the condition 
and nature of man. Adam was created free: 
for God would not have given him a law and 
annexed the penalty of death to transgression, 
unless it had been in his power either to obey 
or disobey. Precepts, threats, and exhortations 
all proceed upon the assumption that man acts 
freely and according to his will. — " But did 
not God foresee that Adam would make an 
ill use of his freedom? how then can we re- 
concile it to his goodness that he should have 
bestowed a gift which he foresaw that Adam 
would abuse ?" To this question, Tertullian 
replies in a laboured argument, the object of 
which is to prove that God, having deter- 
mined to create man after his own image 
and likeness, and consequently to make him 
a free agent, could not consistently interpose 
to prevent him from using his freedom as he 
pleased. We must observe that throughout 
this passage Tertullian is speaking of the ori- 
ginal state of Adam; not of his state after 



333 

the fall, or of the state in which all men are 
born into the world. Before man in his pre- 
sent state can repent and do that which is 
good, his will must be brought under sub- 
jection to the grace of God. 179 The great 
object of Tertullian is to vindicate the deal- 
ings of God with man; and to prove that, 
when men sin, the guilt is strictly and pro- 
perly their own. Adam sinned voluntarily: 
the tempter did not impose upon him the 
inclination to sin, but afforded him the means 
of gratifying the inclination which already 
existed. We may think Tertullian's reasoning 
incorrect, and deny that his solution of the 
difficulties connected with the questions of the 
divine agency and the freedom of man is satis- 
factory: where indeed are we to look for a 
satisfactory solution? But it is evident that 
nothing could be more remote from his inten- 
tion than so to assert the freedom of man's 
will, as either to deny the necessity or to 
detract from the efficacy of divine grace ; from 
the sole operation of which 180 he conceived 

179 Compare de Monogamia, c. 14. Nee ideo duritia im- 
putabitur Christo de arbitrii cujuscunque liberi vitio. " Ecce, 
inquit, posui ante te bonura et malum." Elige quod bonum 
est ; si non potes, quia non vis (posse enim te, si velis, ostendit, 
quia tuo arbitrio utrumque proposuit) discedas oportet ab 
eo cujus non facis voluntatem. 

180 Nisi quod bonorum quorundam, sicuti et malorum, in- 
tolerabilis magnitudo est, ut ad capienda et praestanda ea 

sola 



334 

patience and the other moral graces to take 
their origin. 

What I remarked with respect to the doc- 
trine of original sin is equally applicable to 
that of justification, the subject of the eleventh 
Article of our Church. No controversy on the 
subject existed in Tertullian's time. That which 
occupied so large a portion of St. Paul's atten- 
tion, the dispute respecting the necessity of 
observing the Mosaic ritual as a means of jus- 
tification, appears to have died away imme- 
diately after the expulsion of the Jews by 
Adrian. We must not, therefore, expect in 
Tertullian's language, when he speaks on this 
subject, the precision of controversy. He de- 
scribes, however, m the death of Christ as the 
whole weight and benefit of the Christian name, 
and the foundation of man's salvation. He 

sola gratia divinae inspirationis operetur. Nam quod maxime 
bonum, id maxime penes Deum, nee alius id quam qui 
possidet dispensat, ut cuique dignatur. De Patientia, c. 1. 

181 Totum Christiani nominis et pondus et fructus, mors 
Christi, negatur, quam tam impresse Apostolus demandat, 
utique veram, summum earn fundamentum Evangelii con- 
stituens, et salutis nostra?, et praedicationis suae : Tradidi enim 
inquit, vobis in primis, quod Christus mortuus sit pro peccatis 
nostris, fyc. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 8. See also L. ii. c. 26. 
Christum — oblatorem animae suae pro populi salute; and the 
Scorpiace, c. 7- Christus est qui se tradidit pro delictis nostris. 
De Idololatria. Quum Christus non alia eX causa descendant, 
quam liberandorum peccatorum. 



335 

says 182 in one place, that we are redeemed by 
the blood of God; 183 in another, by the blood 
of the Lord and the Lamb. 184 He asserts that 
such is the efficacy of the blood of Christ, 
that it not only cleanses men from sin and 
brings them out of darkness into light, but 
preserves them also in a state of purity, if 
they continue to walk in the light. He speaks 
of a 185 repentance which is justified by faith, 
poenitentiam ex fide justificatam ; and 186 of jus- 
tification by faith, without the ordinances of 
the law. If, therefore, on other occasions, we 
find him dwelling in strong terms on the 
187 efficacy of repentance, we ought in fairness 
to infer that he did not mean to represent it 
as of itself possessing this efficacy ; but as 
deriving its reconciling virtue from the sacri- 
fice of Christ. In the same sense we must 
understand other passages, in which he ascribes 

182 Non sumus nostri, sed pretio empti; et quali pretio? 
sanguine Dei. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 3. 

' 183 Itaque si exinde quo statum vertit (caro) et in Christum 
tincta induit Christum, et magno redempta est, sanguine 
scilicet Domini et Agni. De Pudicitia, c. 6. 

184 Haec est enim vis Dominici Sanguinis, ut quos jam 
delicto mundarit, et exinde in lumine constituent, mundos 
exinde praestet, si in lumine incedere perseveraverint. De 
Pudicitia, c. 19. 

185 Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 18. sub fine. 

186 Ex fide jam justificandos sine ordine legis. Adv. Mar- 
cionem, L. iv. c. 35. 

187 See de Pcenitentia, cc. 4. 9» 



336 

to 188 bodily mortifications a certain degree of 
merit, and the power of appeasing the divine 
displeasure. The case, in which Tertullian's 
language approaches most nearly to the Roman 
Catholic doctrine of merit, is that of martyr- 
dom. 189 To this undoubtedly he ascribed the 
power of washing away guilt : still, we conceive, 
under the restriction under which he ascribes 
the same power to baptism. The efficacy which 
martyrdom possessed was derived solely from 
the death of Christ. This at least is certain, 
that he positively denied all superabundance 
of merit in the martyr. 190 " Let it suffice," 
he says, speaking of the custom then prevalent 
of restoring penitents to the communion of 
the Church at the intercession of martyrs, 
"let it suffice to the martyr to have washed 
away his own sins. It is a mark of ingra- 
titude or presumption in him to scatter pro- 
fusely upon others, that which he has himself 

188 In primis adflictatio carnis hostia Domino placatoria 
per humiliationis sacrificium, &c. De Patientia, c. 13. De 
Res. Carnis, c. 9. Quo plenius id quod de Eva trahit (igno- 
miniam, dico, primi delicti et invidiam perditionis humanae) 
omni satisfactionis habitu expiaret. De Cultu Foeminarum, 
L. i. c. 1. De Jejuniis, cc. 3, 4, 7- et passim. 

189 Ubi accessit, pati exoptat, ut Dei totam gratiam redi- 
mat, ut omnem veniam ab eo compensatione sanguinis sui 
expediat ? Omnia enim huic operi (martyrio) delicta donan- 
tur. Apology, sub fine. 

190 De Pudicitia, c. 22. 



337 

acquired at a great price. For who but the 
Son of God can by his own death relieve 
others from death? He indeed delivered the 
thief at the very moment of his passion: for 
he had come for this very end, that being 
himself free from sin and perfectly holy, he 
might die for sinners. You then who imi- 
tate Christ in pardoning sins, if you are your- 
self sinless, suffer death for me. But if you 
are yourself a sinner, how can the oil out of 
your cruse suffice both for you and me?" 

We have observed nothing in Tertullian's 
works which bears upon the twelfth Article 
of our Church; but with reference to the 
thirteenth — which involves the question respect- 
ing the nature of heathen virtue — he is sup- 
posed by his editor Rigault, in 191 a passage in 
the Tract de Spectaculis, to express a doubt 
whether a heathen can be actuated by a really 
virtuous principle ; literally, whether a heathen 
has any savour of that which is good. In 
the 192 Tract ad Martyres, a distinction is made 
between the principles in which the fortitude 
of a Christian and of a heathen originates. 
But in neither case is the language of that 

191 Quam melius ergo est nescire quum mali puniuntur, 
ne sciam et quum boni pereunt, si tamen bonum sapiunt, 
c 19- 

192 c. 4. sub fine. 

Y 



338 

clear and express character which will warrant 
us in building any decided conclusion upon 
it. The fair inference, however, from the 
193 general tenor of Tertullian's writings is, that 
he deemed all heathen virtue imperfect; and 
could not, therefore, ascribe to it any merit 
of congruity. 

From the passage which has been just 
quoted from the 194 Tract de Pudicitia, it is 
manifest that Tertullian entirely rejected, with 
our fourteenth Article, the notion of works of 
supererogation: and in the same passage, the 
reader would remark, that in agreement with 
our fifteenth Article, he declared Christ alone 
to be without sin. The same statement is 
repeated in 195 various parts of his writings; 
and it is amusing to observe the anxiety of 
several of the Romish commentators to limit its 
application, and to assure us, that the Virgin 
is not to be included in this general charge 

193 Quia nihil verum in his (foeminis) quae Deum nesciunt 
praesidem et magistratum veritatis. De Cultu Foeminarurn, 
L. ii. c. 1. Igitur ignorantes quique Deum, rem quoque 
ejus ignorent necesse est. De Poenitentia, c. 1. Philosophi 
quidem qui alicujus sapientiae animalis deputantur. De 
Patientia, c. 1. Cui enim Veritas comperta sine Deo? Cui 
Deus cognitus sine Christo? Cui Christus exploratus sine 
Spiritu Sancto? &c. De Anima, c. 1. 

194 c. 22. referred to in note 190. 

195 De Oratione, c. 7- De Anima, c. 41. De Carne Christi, 
c. 16. De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 3. 



339 

of sinfulness. 196 All the other descendants of ' 
Adam contract guilt; and that too after they 
have received marks of the divine favour. In 
proof of this assertion, our author appeals to 
the cases of Saul, and David, and Solomon. 
197 "These," he says, "are they who soil their 
wedding garment, and provide no oil in their 
lamps; and having strayed from the flock, 
must be sought in the mountains and woods, 
and be brought back on the shoulders of the 
shepherd." 

With respect to the recovery of those who 
fall into sin after baptism — the subject of the 
sixteenth Article — 198 we have seen that the 
opinions of Tertullian underwent a material 
alteration ; and that, after he had adopted 
the notions of Montanus in all their rigour, he 
allowed a place of repentance only to those 
who fell into venial transgressions ; maintaining 
that 199 the stain of mortal sin after baptism 

196 j) e Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 3. 

197 Prospexerat et has Deus imbecillitates conditionis 
humana?, adversarii insidias, rerum fallacias, seculi retia, 
etiam post Lavacrum periclitaturam fidem, perituros plerosque 
rursum post salutem : qui vestitum obsoletassent nuptialem, 
qui faculis oleum non praeparassent, qui requirendi per montes 
et saltus, et humeris essent reportandi. Scorpiace, c. 6. 

198 Chap. iv. p. 254. 

199 Posuit igitur secunda solatia et extrema praesidia} dimi- 
cationem martyrii, et lavacrum sanguinis exinde securum. 
Scorpiace, c. 6. 

y2 



340 

could only be washed away by martyrdom, by 
the baptism of the sinner in his own blood. 
Of the sin against the Holy Ghost he makes 
no express mention. With respect to Per- 
severance, Tertullian appears to have thought 
that the true Christian will either persevere 
to the end, 200 or will only fall into those lighter 
offences from which no man is free. 201 He 
who does not persevere, never was a Christian ; 
so that, if in order to accommodate Tertul- 
lian's language to the controversies of later 
times, we substitute the word elect for Christ- 
ian, perseverance, according to him, is the 
evidence of election ; 202 though he did not 
think that Christians can be assured of their 
final perseverance. On comparing, therefore, 
the later opinions of Tertullian with the doc- 
trine of the Church of England in its sixteenth 
Article, we find that they are directly opposed 
to each other. He regards perseverance as the 
evidence that a man is a Christian; or in the 
language of the Article that he has received 
the Holy Ghost. But when he says that he 
alone is a Christian who perseveres to the 
end, his words seem to imply that he who 

200 j)e Pudicitia, c. 19- prope finem. 

201 Nemo autem Christianus, nisi qui ad Jlnem usque per- 
severaverit. De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 3. 

202 Optantes perseverare id in nobis, non tamen praesu- 
mentes. De Cultu Fceminarum, L. ii. c. 2. 



341 

does not persevere never was a Christian — 
had never received grace; whereas the express 
declaration of the Article is, that a man may 
receive grace and afterwards fall from it; and 
such indeed is the declaration of our author 
himself, in the 203 passage which has been just 
quoted, respecting the defection of Saul, David, 
and Solomon. This apparent contradiction 
leads me to observe, that in reading the 
works of the Fathers we should be careful 
to distinguish between incidental or general 
remarks, and remarks made with reference to 
the particular controversies then subsisting. In 
the former they must not be supposed to speak 
with the same precision as in the latter. There 
was no controversy in Tertullian's day on the 
subject of perseverance; we must, therefore, 
not construe his expressions too strictly. 

Of Predestination, as the term is defined 
in our seventeenth Article, we find no trace in 
the writings of Tertullian. The doctrine, as 
proposed in the Article, is the result of a num- 
ber of texts of Scripture, describing the va- 
rious steps of a true believer's progress towards 
salvation. What Tertullian says on the sub- 
ject has a closer connexion with the questions 
agitated in the schools of philosophy, respecting 
208 See note 197. Compare de Pcenitentia, c. 7- 



342 

fate and free-will, than with the Scriptures. 
His controversies with the Heretics of his time, 
who appear to have lost their way in the vain 
search after a solution of the difficulties re- 
specting the origin of evil, frequently oblige 
him to speak of the purpose or will of God 
in the natural and moral government of the 
world; and to contend that this purpose or 
will is not inconsistent with human liberty. 
204 " Some," he says, " argue that whatever hap- 
pens, happens by the will of God; for if God 
had not willed, it would not have happened. 
But this is to strike at the root of all virtue, 
and to offer an apology for every sin. The 
sophistry moreover of the argument is not less 
glaring than its pernicious tendency. For if 
nothing happens but what God wills, God 
wills the commission of crime; in other words, 
he wills what he forbids. We must not, 
therefore, so refer all events to the will of 
God, as to leave nothing in the power of 
man. Man has also a will, which ought 
always to conspire with the will of God, but 
is too often at variance with it." In the chap- 
ter which immediately follows, our author dis- 
tinguishes between the will by which God 
ordains, and the will by which he permits; 

204 De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 2. Compare adv. Prax- 
eam, c. 10. sub fine. 



343 

calling the former pura voluntas, the latter 
invita voluntas. Yet at other times he seems 
to have been aware that this in the case of 
the Almighty is a verbal, not a real, distinc- 
tion; for in reasoning upon the Apostle's de- 
claration, that 205 " there must be heresies that 
they which are approved may be made mani- 
fest," he says, that the very purpose of here- 
sies being to try the faith of Christians, they 
must necessarily pervert those whose faith is 
not well-grounded and stedfast. For that which 
is ordained to be (for instance, heresies), as it 

205 Conditio praesentium temporum etiam hanc admonitio- 
nem provocat nostram, non oportere nos mirari super Haereses 
istas, sive quia sunt: futuraz enim prcenuntiabantur : sive 
quia Jidem quorundam subvertunt ; ad hoc enim sunt, ut Jides, 
habendo tentationem, habeat etiam probationem. Vane ergo 
et inconsiderate plerique hoc ipso scandalizantur, quod 
tantum Haereses valeant. Quantum si non fuissent? quum 
quod sortitum est ut omni modo sit, sicut causam accipit 
ob quam sit, sic vim consequitur per quam sit, nee esse non 
possit. (We have adopted in part the reading of Sender's 
edition.) Febrem denique, inter caeteros mortificos et crucia- 
rios exitus, erogando homini deputatam, neque quia est 
miramur; est enim; neque quia erogat hominem; ad hoc 
enim est. De Praescriptione Haereticorum, cc. I, 2. 

Tertullian seems also to have been aware that election 
implied reprobation; (Praelatio alterius sine alterius contu- 
melia non potest procedere, quia nee Electio sine Reproba- 
tione, Apology, c. 13. Again, adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 23. 
Nam sicut ad salutem vocat, quem non recusat vel etiam 
quern ultro vocat ; ita in perditionem damnat, quem recusat.) 
as well as of the futility of the distinction which is at- 
tempted to be drawn, when it is said that God does not 
positively reprobate, but only does not elect or passes by. 
Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. 29. 



344 

has a cause or purpose on account of which 
it is (the trial of the faith of Christians) ; so 
it must also possess a power by which it is, 
and cannot but be what it is (cannot but be 
subversive of the faith of unstable Christians); 
as in the case of fevers and other mortal 
diseases, which are ordained as modes of re- 
moving men from this world, and must, there- 
fore, possess the power of effecting the end 
for which they were ordained — that of killing. 
Here our author evidently supposes that the 
existence of heresy is not merely permitted, 
but ordained for a particular end. Still he is 
careful to add that, if any individuals are 
perverted, the fault is their own. Had their 
faith been of a firmer character, which de- 
pended upon themselves, they would not have 
fallen away. We may further observe that 
Tertullian appears to have considered fore- 
knowledge as the consequence of predestina- 
tion; or that events are foretold because they 
are pre-ordained. 206 For in assigning the rea- 
son why in the prophetic writings future 
events are frequently spoken of as if they had 

206 Nam et divinitati competit, quaecunque decreverit, ut 
perfecta reputare, quia non sit apud illam differentia tem- 
poris, apud quam uniformem statum temporum dirigit aeter- 
nitas ipsa : et divinationi prophetical magis familiare est 
id quod prospiciat, dum prospicit, jam visum atque ita jam 
expunctum, id est, omni modo futurum demonstrare. Adv. 
Marcionerm L. iii. c. 5. 



345 

already happened, he says that there is no dis- 
tinction of time in the divine mind. God 
regards that which he has decreed to do, as 
if it were already done. 

We 207 have seen that Tertullian was in- 
clined to ascribe a certain degree of divine 
inspiration to the philosophers who had ridi- 
culed the absurdities of the national polythe- 
ism. With respect, however, to the Gentile 
world in 208 general, his opinion was that it was 
under the dominion of the powers of dark- 
ness; and consequently in a state of alienation 
from God. The question which is involved in 
the eighteenth Article of our Church— whether 
a heathen, who framed his life according to the 
light of nature, could be saved — appears never 
to have presented itself to Tertullian's mind. 
Had it been proposed to him, entertaining 
the opinions which he did respecting the ne- 



207 Ad Nationes, L. i. c. 10. quoted in Chap. III. 
note 1. 

208 See the passages quoted in note 193. particularly the 
commencement of the Tract de Pcenitentia, and that from 
the second Tract de Cultu Foeminaruin, in which Tertullian 
says, that the Gentiles, though they might not be devoid of 
all feelings of remorse or of all sense of modesty, yet could 
not possibly comprehend the true notion of repentance and 
chastity. See also ad Nationes, L. ii. c. 2. Quis autem sapiens 
expers veritatis, qui ipsius sapientiae ac veritatis patrem et 
dominum Deum ignoret? 



346 

cessity of Baptism to salvation, he must have 
replied in the negative. 

Having 209 already laid before the reader all 
the information which the writings of our 
author supply respecting the Church, and its 
authority, and the authority of general coun- 
cils; the subjects of our nineteenth, twentieth, 
and twenty-first Articles— we proceed to the 
twenty-second, entitled of Purgatory. 

The Roman Catholic commentators, as we 
might naturally expect, are extremely anxious 
to discover then doctrine of Purgatory, in the 
writings of Tertullian. 210 In our review of 
his Tract de Anima, we stated his opinion to 
be, that the souls of ordinary Christians, im- 
mediately after death, are transferred to a place 
to which he gives the name of Inferi, and there 
remain until the general resurrection, when they 
will be re-united to their respective bodies — that 

209 Chap. iv. pp. 229, 244. Chap. v. pp. 304, 314. 

210 Chap. iii. p. 211. Omnes ergo animas penes Inferos, in- 
quis. Velis ac nolis, et supplicia jam illic et refrigeria : habes 

pauperem et divitem Cur enim non putes animam et 

puniri et foveri in Infer is interim sub expectatione utrius- 
que judicii in quadam usurpatione et Candida ejus ? — 
Delibari putes judicium, an incipi ? praecipitari, an praeminis- 
trari ? Jam vero quam iniquissimum etiam apud Inferos, 
si et nocentibus adhuc illic bene est, et innocentibus non- 
dum. De Anima, cap. ult. 



347 

while they remain there, the souls of the 
good enjoy a foretaste of the happiness, and 
the souls of the wicked of the misery, which 
will be their eternal portion — and that, until 
the soul is re-united to the body, the work 
of retribution cannot be complete. We need 
scarcely observe that this opinion, which 
makes the final state of man a continuation 
only of the intermediate state just described, 
is directly opposed to the doctrine of Purga- 
tory. It must, however, be admitted that 
there are m in Tertullian's writings passages 

211 Thus in the very Chapter of the Tract de Anima, to 
which we have just referred, In summa, quum carcerem ilium, 
quern Evangelium demonstrate (See Matt. v. 25. or Luke xii. 
58.) Inferos intelligamus, et novissimum quadrantem, modi- 
cum quodque delictum mora resurrectionis illic luendum in- 
terpretemur, nemo dubitabit animam aliquid pensare penes 
Inferos, salva resurrectionis plenitudine per carnem quo- 
que. Again, in c. 35. Et Judex te tradat Angelo execu- 
tions, et ille te in carcerem mandet infernum, unde non 
dimittaris, nisi modico quoque delicto mora resurrectionis 
expense See also de Res, Carnis, c. 42. Ne inferos ex- 
periatur, usque novissimum quadrantem exacturos ; and de 
Oratione, c. 7- See Bingham, L. xv. c. 3. Sect. 16. Perhaps 
the correct statement of Tertullian's opinion, after he became 
a Montanist, is, that he conceived the souls of the wicked 
to remain in a state of suffering apud Inferos till the general 
judgement; the souls of the Saints to be re-united to then- 
bodies, not at once, but at different times, according to their 
different merits, pro meritis maturius vel tardius resurgentium, 
in the course of the thousand years during which the reign of 
the Saints on earth was to last. At the end of those thousand 
years the general judgement would take place. The souls 
of the wicked being re-united to their bodies, they would 

be 



348 

which seem to imply that, in the interval 
between death and the general resurrection, 
the souls of those, who are destined to eter- 
nal happiness, undergo a purification from the 
stains which even the best men contract 
during their lives. Though he was, 212 as we 
have seen, fully aware of the mischief which 
had arisen from blending the tenets of philo- 
sophy with the doctrines of the Gospel, he 
was unable to keep himself entirely free from 
the prevalent contagion; for there can be no 
doubt that the notion of a purification, which 
is necessary to the soul before it can be ad- 
mitted to the happiness of heaven, is of 215 Pla- 
tonic origin. 

Of Pardons, in the sense in which the word 
is used in our twenty-second Article, there is 
no mention in Tertullian's writings. 

The same remark applies to image-worship 

be consigned to eternal misery ; while the bodies of the Saints, 
who had already risen, would undergo the transformation 
mentioned in our account of the Tract de Res. Carnis. See 
this Chapter, p. 285. and note 26l. According to this opinion, 
the souls even of the Saints require purification, though in 
different degrees, apud Inferos. 

212 Chap. III. p. 175. 

213 Our author, however, refers the origin of the notion 
to the revelations of the Paraclete. Hoc etiam Paracletus 
frequentissime commendavit. De Anima, cap. ult. 



349 

and to the 2H invocation of saints. It is, however, 
impossible to read our author's animadversions 
on the Gentile idolatry, without being convinced 
that he would have regarded the slightest 
approach to image-worship with the utmost 
abhorrence. 

On the other hand, we find more 215 than one 
allusion to the practice of praying and offering 
for the dead; and of making 216 oblations in 
honour of the martyrs, on the anniversary of 
their martyrdom. 

We may take this opportunity of observing, 
that 217 Pearson maintains the perpetual virginity 
of the mother of our Lord, on the ground that 

214 Ut quern (Deum) ubique audire et videre fideret, ei 
soli religionem suam offerret. De Oratione, c. 1. This re- 
mark would scarcely have been made by one who allowed the 
invocation of saints. 

215 Neque enim pristinam (uxorem) poteris odisse, cui 
etiam religiosiorem reservas affectionem, ut jam receptee 
apud Deum, pro cujus Spiritu postulas, pro qua oblationes 
annuas reddis ? De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 11. Enim- 
vero et pro anima ejus orat, et refrigerium interim ad- 
postulat ei, et in prima resurrectione consortium, et offert 
annuis diebus dormitionis ejus. De Monogamia, c. 10. 

216 Oblationes pro defunctis,, pro natalitiis, annua die 
facimus. De Corona, c. 3. In one place Bingham speaks as 
if this practice applied to the dead generally ; Book xv. c. 3. 
Sect. 15. in another, as if it had been confined to martyrs. 
Book xiii. c. 9. Sect. 5. 

217 Article iii. p. 173. 



350 

it has been believed by the Church of God 
in all ages. He admits indeed that Tertullian 
had been appealed to as an assertor of the op- 
posite opinion; and that 218 Jerome, instead of 
denying the charge, had contented himself with 
replying, that Tertullian was a separatist from 
the Church : — but he thinks, though he does not 
state the grounds of his opinion, that Jerome 
might have denied the charge. There is, 
however, a passage in the Tract de 219 Mono- 
gamia which, though not entirely free from 
ambiguity, appears to be inconsistent with 
the notion of the perpetual virginity. 

What 220 has been already stated respecting 
Tertullian's notion of the Church, sufficiently 
proves that in agreement with our twenty-third 
Article, he considered no one at liberty to 
preach the Word of God, without a regular 
commission. 221 The Apostles, he says, were 

218 Adversus Helvidium, Ep. 53. Et de Tertulliano qui- 
dem nihil amplius dico, quam Ecclesiae hominem non fuisse. 

219 c. 8. Et Christum quidem virgo enixa est,, semel 3 nup- 
tura post partum, ut uterque titulus sanctitatis in Christi 
censu dispungeretur, per matrem et virginera et univiram. 
But Semler instead of post reads oh. See also de Came 
Christi, c. 23. Et virgo, quantum a viro ; non virgo, quan- 
tum a partu. 

220 Chap. iv. p. 229- 

221 Cum Discipulis autem quibusdam apud Galilaeam, 
Judaeae regionem, ad quadraginta dies egit, docens eos quae 
docerent : dehinc ordinatis iis ad officium praedicandi per or- 

bem, 



351 

appointed by our Lord to the office of preach- . 
ing the Gospel throughout the world. They 
appointed persons to preside in the different 
Churches which they founded ; and thus an 
uninterrupted succession of bishops had been 
kept up to the very time at which he wrote. 
222 We have seen also that, among other 
charges which he brought against the Here- 
tics, he particularly alleged that they made 
no sufficient enquiry into the qualifications of 
the persons whom they ordained ; and that 
they even enjoined laymen to perform the 
sacerdotal functions. 225 Those passages of his 
writings in which he appears to claim for 
Christians in general the right of administer- 
ing the sacraments, on the ground that the 
priestly character is, if I may use the term, 
inherent equally in all Christians, refer only 
to cases of necessity. 

The prevalent, perhaps the universal, opi- 
nion of the early Christians was, that Baptism 

bem, circumfusa nube in coelum ereptus est. Apology, 
c. 21. See also de Prsescriptione Haereticorum, c. 32. refer- 
red to in Chap. iv. note 10. 

222 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 41. quoted in Chap, 
iv. note 9. . 

223 See de Baptisnm, c. 17. De Exhortatione Castitatis, 
c. 7- quoted in Chap. iv. note 6. De Monogamia, c. 12. 
qvioted in the same chapter, note 8. 



352 

was absolutely necessary to salvation. This 
opinion they grounded upon the words of 
Christ to Nicodemus — " Except a man be born 
of water and the spirit, he cannot enter into 
the kingdom of God." In those days cases 
must frequently have occurred in which per- 
sons, suffering under severe illness, and ex- 
pecting the near approach of death, were 
anxious to receive Baptism; but could not 
procure the attendance of a regularly or- 
dained minister. What then was to be 
done? The answer of reflecting men at the 
present day would probably be, that when 
a sincere desire exists to receive Baptism, as 
well as the devout frame of mind necessary 
to its worthy reception, the unavoidable omis- 
sion of the outward act will never constitute, 
in the sight of a merciful God, a reason for 
excluding a believer from the benefits of the 
Christian covenant. But Tertullian and the 
Christians of his day reasoned otherwise : — they 
were impressed with the belief that the ex- 
ternal rite was absolutely necessary to salva- 
tion. In cases, therefore, such as I have now 
described, they thought it better that the 
rite should be performed by a layman, than 
that it should not be performed at all ; and 
they justified this deviation from the esta- 
blished discipline of the Church, by the notion 



353 

that the priestly character is impressed upon 
all Christians indifferently at their Baptism. 
Still our author's reasoning clearly proves his 
opinion to have been, that this latent power, 
if it may so be termed, was only to be called 
into actual exercise in cases of necessity. 
Laymen, who in the present day take upon 
themselves to administer the rite of Baptism, 
in cases in which the attendance of a regu- 
larly ordained minister can be procured, must 
not appeal to the authority of Tertullian in 
defence of their rash assumption of the sacred 
office. 

Were it not for a 224 passage in the Tract 
de Baptismo, in which the inherent right of 
the laity to baptise is expressly asserted, we 
should have been inclined to regard Tertul- 
lian's reasoning as an argument ad hominem of 
the following kind. " It is a favourite notion 
with you (laymen), that all Christians are priests, 
and may consequently exercise the sacerdotal 
functions. Be consistent with yourselves. If 
you assume the power of the clergy, conform 
yourselves to the rule of life prescribed to 
them. Do not say, the clergy may not con- 
tract a second marriage, but the laity may. 
The distinction between the clergy and laity 

224 c. 17- 
Z 



354 

is a distinction of office, and does not affect 
the relation in which they stand to the great 
rules of morality. These they are both alike 
bound to observe; and what is criminal in 
the clergy, is also criminal in the laity." 
Viewed in this light, Tertullian's reasoning is 
correct, though it proceeds upon the errone- 
ous assumption that a second marriage is for- 
bidden to the clergy. 

With regard to the twenty-fourth Arti- 
cle, although our author does not expressly 
tell us in what language the service of the 
Church was performed, the necessary inference 
from his writings is, that it was performed 
in a language with which the whole congre- 
gation was familiar. In order to remove the 
distrust with which the Roman governors re- 
garded the Christian assemblies, he states, 225 in 

225 Corpus sumus de conscientia religionis, et disciplinae 
unitate, et spei fcedere. Coimus ad Deurn, ut quasi manu facta 
precationibus ambiamus. Haec vis Deo grata est. Oramus 
etiam pro imperatoribus., pro ministris eorum ac potes- 
tatibus, pro statu seculi, pro rerura quiete., pro mora 
finis. Coimus ad Literarum Divinarum commemorationem, 
si quid praesentium temporum qualitas aut prsemonere cogit 
aut recognoscere. Certe fidem Sanctis vocibus pascimus, 
spem erigimus, fiduciam figimus, disciplinam praeceptorum 
nihilominus inculcationibus densamus, c. 3$. quoted in 
Chap. iv. p. 222. The expression quasi manu facta preca- 
tionibus ambiamus, implies that all present joined in prayer. 
The passage in the second Tract ad Uxorem, c. 6. relates 

rather 



355 

the Apology, the object of those meetings. 
" We form," he says, " a body ; being 
joined together by a community of religion, 
discipline, and hope. We come together 
for the purpose of offering our prayers to 
God; and as it were extorting, by our num- 
bers and united supplications, a compliance 
with our desires. Such violence is pleasing to 
God. We pray also for the emperors, for 
their officers, for all who are in authority: 
we pray that the course of this world may 
be peaceably ordered, and the consummation 
of all things be deferred. We come together 
for the purpose of reading the Holy Scrip- 
tures ; when the circumstances of the times 
appear to call for any. particular admonitions, 
or for the careful discussion of any particular 
topics. Of this at least we are sure, that our 
faith will be nourished, our hope elevated, 
our confidence confirmed, by listening to the 
words of Scripture; and that the Christian 
rule of life will be impressed upon us with 
increased effect, through the inculcation of 
holy precepts." It is evident that none of 
the objects which Tertullian here enumerates 
could have been attained, if the prayers had 

rather to Family-Devotion. Quae Dei mentio? quae Christi 
invocatio? ubi fomenta fidei de Scripturarum interjectione ? 
ubi Spiritus? ubi refrigerium ? ubi divina benedictio? 

z2 



356 

been offered, or the Scriptures read, in a 
tongue to which the majority of the persons 
assembled were strangers. 

We now proceed to the twenty-fifth 
Article — De Sacramentis. 226 The contro- 
versy between the Romish and English 
Churches, respecting the number of Sacra- 
ments, seems in a great measure to have arisen 
from the laxity with which the Latin Fathers 
used the word Sacramentum. In classical 
writers sacramentum means an oath or pro- 
mise, ratified by a sacred or religious cere- 
mony ; thus the oath taken by the military 
was called sacramentum ; and in this sense the 
word is 227 frequently used by Tertullian. In 
strict conformity with this its original signifi- 
cation, it is used to express 228 the promise 
made by Christians in baptism. From the 

226 n ow ^at t h e wor d Sacrament has been strictly de- 
fined, the case is very different; and the question between 
the two Churches respecting the number of sacraments be- 
comes of great importance. 

227 Nemo in castra hostium transit, nisi projectis armis 
suis, nisi destitutis signis et Sacramentis Principis sui. De 
Spectaculis, c. 24. De Idololatria, c. 19- De Corona, c. 11. 
Scorpiace, c. 4. De Jejuniis, c. 10. Ad Martyres, c. 3. 

228 De ipso Sacramento nostro interpretaremur nobis, ad- 
versas esse fidei ejusmodi artes. Quomodo enim renuntiamus 
Diabolo et Angelis ejus, si eos facimus. De Idololatria, 
c. 6. Semel jam in Sacramenti testatione ejeratae. De 
Corona, c. 13. 



357 

oath the transition was easy to the ceremony 
by which it was ratified. Thus 229 sacramen- 
tum came to signify any religious ordinance; 
and in general to stand for that which in 
the Greek is expressed by the word fivaTijptov— 
any emblematical action of a sacred import; 
any external rite having an internal or secret 
meaning. By a similar transition the 230 word 
was also used to express that which the con- 
vert promised to observe, the whole Christian 
doctrine and rule of life. 

With respect to Baptism and the Eucharist, 
Tertullian calls the former Sacramentum 
231 Aqua?, 232 Lavacri, 233 Fidei; the latter, ^Sa- 
cramentum Eucharistias. In the Tract de Bap- 
tismo we find the expression — sacramentum 

229 Apology, cc. 7, 47» Ad Nationes, L. i. c. 16. sub fine, 
De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 26, Dominus palam edixit, 
sine ulla significatione alicujus tecti Sacramenti. c. 40. et passim. 

230 Hoc prius capite, et omnem hie Sacramenti nostri 
ordinem haurite. Apology, c. 14. sub fine, compared with 
c. 16. sub fine. Quae omnia, conversi jam ad demonstrati- 
onem religionis nostra? , repurgavimus. So in c. 19. in quo 
videtur thesaurus collocatus totius Judaici Sacramenti, et 
inde etiam nostri. See also de Praescriptione Haereticorum., 
c. 20. sub fine. Addita est ampliatio Sacramento. De Bap- 
tismo, c. 13. et passim. 

231 De Baptismo, cc 1, 12. 

232 De Virginibus velandis, c. 2. 

233 De Anima, c. 1. 
TA De Corona, c. 3. 



358 

sanctificationis 235 ; which, though not applied to 
the external rite of Baptism, conveys the idea 
contained in the definition of a sacrament 
given in our Catechism — "an outward and 
visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." 
Notwithstanding the laxity with which Ter- 
tullian uses the word, I do not find it ap- 
plied to any of the five Romish sacraments, 
236 excepting Marriage; and then with a par- 
ticular reference to Ephesians v. 32. ; where he 
renders the words /ueya /uLvaTypiov, magnum sacra- 
mentum. In 237 the Tract against Praxeas I 
find the expression unctionis sacramentum; but 
Tertullian is there speaking of the anointing 
of our Saviour by the Holy Ghost. 

Soon after the time of Tertullian, a con- 
troversy arose respecting the validity of He- 
retical Baptism. Cyprian contended that it 
was invalid ; and that all persons so baptised, 
if they wished afterwards to become members 
of the Church, must be re-baptised. Stephen, 
the Bishop of Rome, thought otherwise; and 

235 c. 4. Igitur omnes aquae de pristina praerogativa. 
Sacramentum sanctificationis consequuntuir, invocato Deo. 
All water acquires from ancient prerogative (because the 
Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, Genesis 
i. 2.) the sacramental power of sanctification (vim sanctifi- 
candi, as Tertullian afterwards expresses himself), through 
prayer to God. 

236 De Jejuniis, c. 3. 237 c. 28. sub initio. 



359 

the Church, though long divided on the sub- 
ject, appears finally to have adopted his opi- 
nion. 238 A11 Baptism by water performed in 
the name of the Holy Trinity, by whomso- 
ever administered, was deemed to be valid and 
not to be repeated. Had the dispute existed 
in our author's time, it is evident, from 259 the 
general tenor of his writings, that he would 
have sided with Cyprian. 240 On one occasion 
he denies that Heretics are entitled to the 
name of Christians ; they could not conse- 
quently possess that priestly character which 
he supposed all Christians to receive at their 
Baptism. It is indeed probable that in this 
instance, as in others, Cyprian formed his opi- 
nion from the perusal of his master's works. 
The case which was discussed in Cyprian's 
day differed in one material point from that 
contemplated by our twenty-sixth Article. The 
disqualification in the minister, which was 
supposed to affect the validity of the sacra- 
ments when administered by him, existed ah 
initio ; he was not a member of the true 

238 Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, L. v. Sect. 62. 

239 See particularly de Baptismo, c. 15. We should, 
however, bear in mind, that the Heretics, whom Tertullian 
had in view, were the Marcionites, Valentinians, &c. who 
denied that the God of the Old Testament was the Su- 
preme God. 

240 Si enim Hseretici sunt, Christiani esse non possunt. 
De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 37- See also c. 16. 



360 

Church. The case, which our Article has in 
view, is that of a minister regularly ordained, 
who after ordination falls into gross immora- 
lities; and the question arising out of it is, 
whether his profligacy vitiates the sacraments. 
This question does not appear to have pre- 
sented itself to our author; nor could it fre- 
quently happen in those days, when the dis- 
cipline of the Church was still maintained in 
its original purity and vigour. An openly 
vicious minister would then have been im- 
mediately degraded, and cut off from the 
communion of the Church. Standing, there- 
fore, on the footing of a heathen, he would 
have been deemed incapable of administering 
any of the rites of the Church. 

We shall defer the consideration of the 
Articles relating to Baptism and the Lord's 
Supper, until we come to speak of the rites and 
ceremonies of the Church. Indeed we observe 
nothing in Tertullian's works, which bears upon 
the twenty-ninth or the thirty -first Article. We 
proceed therefore, to the thirty-second Article, 
De Conjugio Sacerdotum. That the clergy in 
Tertullian's time were not obliged to lead a 
life of celibacy, must be admitted by every 
person who has perused his writings. 241 Yet 

241 Quanti igitur et quantae in Ecclesiasficis Ordinibus 

de 



361 

the austerity of his character would certainly 
have impelled him to impose upon them this 
restriction, could he have discovered any plau- 
sible pretence for doing it. 242 He remarks 
with evident satisfaction that of all the Apo- 
stles, as far as his researches extended, St. Peter 
alone was married: — and having admitted 
in 243 the Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis that 
the Apostles were allowed to carry about their 
wives with them, he afterwards 244 in the 
Tract de Monogamia gives a different inter- 
pretation of the passage ; and asserts that the 
females there spoken of were not wives, but 
women who ministered to the Apostles, as 
Martha and others had done to Christ. 245 The 
arguments, however, by which he endeavours 
to prove that laymen ought not to contract 
a second marriage, show that the clergy were 

de continentia censentur, qui Deo nubere maluerunt, qui 
carnis suae honorera restituerunt, quique se jam illius aevi 
Alios dicaverunt, occidentes in se concupiscentiam libidinis, 
et totum illud quod intra Paradisum non potuit admitti. 
De Exhortatione Castitatis, cap. ult. sub fine. This passage 
proves that, although many Ecclesiastics led a life of celi- 
bacy, it was not required of all. 

242 De Monogamia, c 8. 243 c. 8. 

244 c. 8. 1 Cor. ix. 5. This change of opinion seems to 
confirm the statement made in Chap. I. p. 6l. that Tertullian, 
when he wrote the Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis, had not 
embraced the tenets of Montanus in all their rigour. 

245 See de Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 7. De Monogamia, 
c. 12. quoted in Chap. IV. notes 6 and 8. 



362 

at liberty to marry once: and his interpreta- 
tion of 246 the texts in the Epistles to Timo- 
thy and Titus leads to the same conclusion. 
We know also that he was himself married; 
but ~ 47 the Romish commentators attempt to get 
rid of this perplexing fact by saying that, 
when he became a priest, he ceased to cohabit 
with his wife. 

In 248 our observations upon the govern- 
ment of the Church, we referred to a 249 pas- 
sage in the Apology, in which Tertullian says, 
that in the assemblies of the Christians cen- 
sures were pronounced, and offenders cut off 
from the communion of the Church. It may, 
however, be inferred from his words, that 
Excommunication, the subject of our thirty- 
third Article, did not then imply an inter- 
ruption of all civil intercourse with the 
offending party, but only an exclusion from 
all participation in religious exercises — " a 

246 1 Tim. liL 2. Titus i. 6. 

247 The reader will find in the Life of Tertullian, by 
Pamelius, under the year 201, the reasons alleged by that com- 
mentator in support of the opinion mentioned in the text; 
and in Allix's Dissertation, c. 2. reasons for doubting its 
correctness. If Tertullian and his wife had separated by- 
mutual consent, it seems scarcely necessary for him to have 
cautioned her against contracting a second marriage after 
his death. 

248 Chap. IV. p. 251. m c. 39- 



363 

communicatione orationis, et conventus, et 
omnis sancti commercii." 

The thirty-fourth Article of our Church is 
entitled de Traditionibus Ecclesiasticis : but 
in our remarks upon the sixth Article we 
have already laid before our readers all the 
information which the writings of Tertullian 
supply with respect both to traditional doc- 
trines and practices. 

Passing over the 250 thirty-fifth and thirty- 
sixth Articles, we proceed to the thirty-seventh, 
De Civilibus Magistratibus. 251 It is evident, 
from various passages of Tertullian's works, 
that he deemed the exercise of the functions 
of the magistracy incompatible with the pro- 
fession of Christianity; not merely on account 
of the danger to which, under a Pagan go- 
vernment, a magistrate was continually ex- 
posed, of being betrayed into some idolatrous 
act ; but also because 252 the dress and other 

250 De Homiliis, and de Episcoporum et Ministrorum 
Consecration e. 

251 At enim nobis ab omni gloria? et dignitatis ardore fri- 
gentibus nulla est necessitas coetus, nee ulla magis res 
aliena, quam publica. Apology,, c. 38. See also cc. 31. and 
46. Si de modestia certem, ecce Pythagoras apud Thurios, 
Zeno apud Prienenses tyrannidera affectant : Christianus vero 
nee aedilitatem. 

252 De Spectaculis, c. 12. But see particularly de Ido- 
lolatria, cc 17, 18. where the question is regularly discussed. 



364 

insignia savoured of those pomps and vanities, 
those works of the devil, which Christians 
renounce at their baptism. He 253 does not 
expressly say that capital punishments are pro- 
hibited by the Gospel ; but he certainly 
thought that Christians 254 ought not to sit as 
judges in criminal causes, or 255 attend the 
amphitheatre, or be present at an execution. 

In 256 the Treatise de Corona he enters into 
a regular discussion of the question, whether 
it is allowable for a Christian to engage in 
the military profession. This question he de- 
termines in the negative, for 257 reasons suffi- 
ciently weak and frivolous. It might, he was 
aware, be objected, that neither did John the 
Baptist command the soldiers who came to 

253 Nee isti porro exitus violent!, quos justitia deeernit, 
violentice vindex. De Anima, c. 56. 

254 Jam vero quae sunt potestatis, neque judicet (Christia- 
nus) de capite alicujus vel pudore (feras enim de pecunia,) 
neque damnet, neque praedamnet, neminem vinciat, neminem 
recludat, aut torqueat. De Idololatria, c. 17- Tertullian calls 
the judicial proceedings of the magistrates justitiam seculi, an 
expression which implies an indirect condemnation. De 
Anima, c. 33. Compare de Spectaculis, c. 15. Seculum Dei 
est, secularia autem diaboli; and de Idololatria, c. 18. Nam 
Daemonia magistratus sunt seculi. 

255 De Spectaculis, c. 19. 

556 c. 11. Compare de Idololatria, c. 19. 

257 p or instance, that a Christian, who has pledged his 
allegiance to Christ in baptism, cannot afterwards take the 
military path to a mortal monarch. 



365 

his baptism, nor Christ the centurion, to re- 
nounce the military life; but he gets rid of 
this objection by drawing a distinction be- 
tween the case of one who is actually a 
soldier when he embraces Christianity, and 
that of a Christian who becomes a soldier* 
In the 258 Apology, however, where our author's 
object is to prove that Christians are not un- 
profitable to the state, he says, that they were 
to be found in the Roman armies : and this 
fact is necessarily assumed in the celebrated 
story of the Thundering Legion. 

We find nothing in Tertullian's works 
from which it can be inferred, that he main- 
tained the doctrine— against which the thirty- 
eighth Article is directed — of a community of 
goods among Christians, as touching the right, 
title, and possession of the same: 259 though he 
describes them as contributing without reserve 
from their own substance towards the relief of 
their brethren, and living as if there was no 
distinction of property among them. 

With respect to oaths — the subject of the 

258 Navigamus et nos vobiscum, et vobiscum militamus, 
c. 42. 

259 Itaque qui animo animaque miscemur, nihil de rei com- 
municatione dubitamusj omnia indiscreta sunt apud nos, 
praeter uxores. Apology, c. 39- 



366 

thirty-ninth Article — 260 he appears to have 
understood our Saviour's injunction, " Swear 
not at all," literally; and to have thought 
that an oath was not under any circum- 
stances allowable. 

Among King Edward's Articles is one 
against the Millenarians. In 261 my account of 

260 Taceo de perjurio, quando ne jjurare quidem liceat. De 
Idololatria, c. 11. Ne juret quidem, c. 17- See also c. 23. 

261 Chap. I. p. 20. We will give the passage at full 
length. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 24. De restitutione vero 
Judaeae, quam et ipsi Judaei ita ut describitur sperant, 
locorum et regionum nominibus inducti, quomodo allegorica 
inierpretaiio (Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 62.) in Christum 
et in Ecclesiam et habitum et fructum ejus spiritaliter com- 
petat, et longum est persequi, et in alio opere digestum, 
quod inscribimus De Spe Fidelium; et in praesenti vel 
eo otiosum, quia non de terrena, sed de ccelesti promissione 
sit quaestio. (Compare L. iii. c. 16.) Nam et confitemur in 
terra nobis regnum repromissum, sed ante ccelum, sed alio 
statu, utpote post resurrectionem, in mille annos, in civi- 
tate divini operis, Hierusalem, ccelo delata, quam et Apo- 
stolus matrem nostram sursum designat, et -TroXlrevfjia 
nostrum, id est, municipatum, in coelis esse pronuntians, 
alicui utique ccelesti civitati eum deputat. Hanc et Ezechiel 
novit, et Apostolus loannes vidit, et qui apud fidem nostram 
est Novae Prophetiae Sermo testatur, ut etiam effigiem civi- 
tatis ante repraesentationem ejus conspectui futuram in signum 
praedicaret. Denique proxime expunctum est Orientali Ex- 
peditione. Constat enim, Ethnicis quoque testibus, in Judaea 
per dies quadraginta matutinis momentis civitatem de ccelo 
pependisse, omni mceniorum habitu, evanescentem de profectu 
diei et alias de proximo nullam. Hanc dicimus excipien- 
dis resurrectione Sanctis et refovendis omnium bonorum 
utique spiritalium copia, in compensationem eorum quae in 
seculo vel despeximus vel amisimus, a Deo prospectant 

Siquidem 



367 

Tertullian I stated that he had adopted the 
notion of a Millennium; and referred to a 
story, in the third Book against Marcion, of 
a city, which had been seen in Judea sus- 
pended in the air for forty successive days, 
during the early part of the morning. This 
city, according to him, was the image of the 
New Jerusalem, destined for the reception of 
the Saints during their reign of a thousand 
years on earth ; in the course of which, their 
resurrection will be gradually effected accord- 
ing to their different degrees of merit; and 
which is to be followed by the conflagration 
of the world and the general judgement. 
Tertullian states, however, that the enjoy- 
ments and delights of this New Jerusalem 
will be purely, or as Mosheim understands 
the passage, chiefly spiritual. In 262 the Tract 
de Pudicitia he connects the hope of Christ- 
ians with the restoration of the Jews. We 

Siquidem et justum et Deo dignum illic quoque exsultare 
famulos ejus, ubi sunt et afflicti in nomine ipsius. Haec 
ratio regni terreni : post cujus mille annos, intra quam aeta- 
tem concluditur Sanctorum resurrectio pro meritis maturius 
vel tardius resurgentium, tunc et mundi destructione et 
judicii conflagratione commissi, demutati in atomo in ange- 
licam substantiam, scilicet per illud incorruptelae superindu- 
mentum, transferemur in cceleste regnum. See Mosheim, De 
Rebus Christianis ante Constantinum. Seculum tertium, c. 38. 
262 Christianum enim restitutione Judaei gaudere et non do- 
lere conveniet ; siquidem tota spes nostra cum reliqua Israelis 
expectatione conjuncta est, c 8. 



368 



may take this opportunity of observing that 

263 he notices and ridicules the Platonic or 
Pythagorean notion, that, after an interval of 
a thousand years has elapsed, the dead are 
recalled to life, and again run their course on 
earth. 

Another of King Edward's Articles was 
directed against those who maintained that all 
men, even the most impious, after suffering 
punishment for a certain time, would be finally 
saved. Tertullian appears to have coincided in 
opinion with the framers of this Article. He 

264 asserts distinctly that all men will not be 
saved; and 265 maintains, that the punishments 
of the wicked will endure for ever. 

In 266 the early ages of the Church a notion 
was very generally prevalent among its mem- 
bers that the end of the world was at hand; 

263 De Anima, c. 30. sub fine. 

264 Non enim omnes salvi fiunt. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. 
c. 24. 

265 De Anima, c. 33. sub fine. Apology, cc. 48, 49- 

266 Ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 5. sub fine. De Exhortatfone Cas- 
titatis, c. 6. from 1 Cor. vii. 29. De Monogamia, c. 16. De 
Fuga in Persecutione, c. 12. Antichristo jam instante. In 
the two passages last-cited Tertullian speaks of the near 
approach of the dreadful persecutions which were to follow 
the appearance of Antichrist. De Pudicitia, c. 1. sub initio, 
De Jejuniis, c. 12. sub initio. 



369 

and sceptical writers have insinuated that the 
Apostles themselves were not entirely exempt 
from this erroneous persuasion. That the 
notion took its rise from expressions in the 
Apostolic Writings may be admitted; but 
that it existed in the minds of the writers 
themselves is far from certain ; since the pas- 
sages may very reasonably be supposed to 
refer to the capture of Jerusalem by the 
Romans, and the total subversion of the 
Jewish polity. The general belief, as stated 
by Tertullian, was that the end of the world 
would immediately follow the downfal of 
the Roman empire; which was conceived to 
be the obstacle, mentioned by 267 St. Paul, to 
the revelation of the man of sin. Our author 
268 urges this belief as a reason why the Christ- 
ians, far from entertaining hostile designs 
against the empire, prayed earnestly for its 



267 2 Thess. ii. 6. Quis ? nisi Romanus status, cujus ab- 
scessio in decern reges dispersa Antichristum superducet. 
De Res. Carnis, c. 24. 

268 Est et alia major necessitas nobis orandi pro Imperato- 
ribus, etiam pro omni statu imperii rebusque Romanis, qui 
vim maximam universo orbi imminentem, ipsamque clausulam 
seculi acerbitates horrendas comminantem, Romani imperii 
commeatu scimus retardari ; itaque nolumus experiri, et dum 
precamur differri, Romanae diuturnitati favemus. Apology, 
c. 32. See also c. 39. pro mora finis. Ad Scapulam, c. 2. 
Cum toto Romano imperio, quousque seculum stabit ; tamdiu 
enim stabit. 

Aa 



370 

continuance and prosperity. He is not, how- 
ever, always consistent with himself; for we 
have seen that in 269 the Tract de Oratione he 
condemns those who pray for the longer 
continuance of the present world; on the 
ground that such a petition is at variance 
with the clause in the Lord's Prayer, Thy 
kingdom come. 

Having now gone through the Articles of 
our Church, and laid before the reader such 
passages of Tertullian's works as appeared to 
throw any light upon the doctrines contained 
in them, we will briefly compare the result 
of our enquiries with the account given by 
Mosheim, of the doctrines of the Church in 
the second century. 27 ° His first remark is, 
that in this century the simplicity of the 
Gospel began to be corrupted, and its beauty 
to be impaired, by the misguided diligence of 
men, who endeavoured to explain and define 
the Christian system by a reference to the 
tenets of Pagan philosophy. We 271 have seen 
that Tertullian was not insensible to the mis- 
chief which had arisen from this cause; 

269 c. 5. Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 22. sub initio, 
referred to in Chap. I. note 33. 

2 ?° Century II. Chap. III. Sect. 2, 3. 
*\ Chap. III. p. 175. 



371 

although, with respect to the particular in- 
stance alleged by Mosheim in illustration of 
the above remark, he appears himself to have 
been in some degree liable to censure. " Plato," 
says Mosheim, "had taught that the souls of 
heroes, of illustrious men, and eminent philo- 
sophers alone ascended after death into the 
mansions of light and felicity ; while those of 
the generality, weighed down by their lusts 
and passions, sunk into the infernal regions, 
whence they were not permitted to emerge 
before they were purified from their turpitude 
and corruption. This doctrine was seized with 
avidity by the Platonic Christians, and ap- 
plied as a commentary upon that of Jesus. 
Hence a notion prevailed that the martyrs 
only entered upon a state of happiness imme- 
diately after death; and that for the rest a 
certain obscure region was assigned, in which 
they were to be imprisoned until the second 
coming of Christ, or at least until they were 
purified from their various pollutions." Our 
author cannot with propriety be denominated 
a Platonic Christian ; yet he certainly enter- 
tained the opinion on which Mosheim here 
animadverts. In this instance, as in many 
others, there appears to have been a process 
of the following kind. The tenets of the phi- 
losophers were first employed in illustration 

aa2 



372 

or amplification of the doctrines of the Gospel ; 
and passages of Scripture were afterwards per- 
verted, in order to defend the notions which 
resulted from this mixture of heathenism and 
Christianity. The Platonic fancy described by 
Mosheim gave rise to the notion, that mar- 
tyrs alone were admitted to an immediate 
participation in the happiness of heaven; and 
this notion was confirmed by an appeal to 
272 the Book of Revelations, in which St. John 
is represented as having seen the souls of 
none but martyrs under the altar. 

Mosheim's 275 second remark relates to the 
veneration with which the Scriptures were re- 
garded by the early Christians. Tertullian's 
numerous quotations from them afford suffi- 
cient evidence that his mind was deeply im- 
pressed with this feeling of reverence. We 
shall perhaps recur hereafter to his quota- 
tions and expositions of Scripture. For the 
present, therefore, we shall content ourselves 
with observing that, although of a very dif- 
ferent school of divines from that to which 
Clemens Alexandrinus belonged, he is by no 
means exempt from the fault which Mosheim 
imputes to the latter author — of dealing in 

272 c. 6. v. 9. See de Anim^ c. 55. 

273 Ubi supra, Sect. 4, 5. 



373 

forced and extravagant and mystical interpre- 
tations. 

Mosheim 274 remarks thirdly, that no at- 
tempts had yet been made to exhibit the 
Christian doctrines in a systematic form: or at 
least, no such attempts have come to our 
knowledge. The latter part of the remark is 
undoubtedly true; for the Apologies which 
were published from time to time were, as we 
have seen, designed rather to repel the calum- 
nious accusations brought against the Christians, 
than to give a connected view either of the 
evidences or doctrines of the Gospel. But we 
know that the Catechumens passed through 
a course of instruction before their admission 
to the baptismal font; and this fact seems 
almost necessarily to imply that the instruction 
was communicated upon some regular and sys- 
tematic plan. When we come to the consi- 
deration of Tertullian's controversial writings, 
we shall find that his reasonings, on the par- 
ticular points of doctrine which he undertook 
to maintain against the Heretics, are neither 
deficient in perspicuity nor in force. Mosheim 
indeed has spoken, in the most contemptuous 
terms, of the reasoning powers and controver- 
sial qualifications of the early Fathers. Two 

2 ? 4 Sect. 6, 7, 8. 



374 

of his observations may be thought more par- 
ticularly applicable to Tertullian. "One," he 
says, "laying aside the Sacred Writings, from 
which all the weapons of religious controversy 
ought to be drawn, refers to the decisions of 
those bishops who ruled the Apostolic Churches. 
Another thinks that the antiquity of a doc- 
trine is a mark of its truth, and pleads pre- 
scription against his adversary, as if he was 
maintaining his property before a civil magi- 
strate ; than which method of disputing nothing 
can be more pernicious to the cause of truth." 
To the reader who remembers our remarks 
upon the subject of Tradition it can scarcely 
be necessary to observe, that this statement of 
Mosheim is a most unfair and erroneous repre- 
sentation of the line of argument pursued by 
Tertullian, in his Tract de Prasscriptione Haare- 
ticorum. So far is he from laying aside the 
Sacred Writings, that 275 his main charge 
against the Heretics is, that they had substi- 
tuted the tenets of the Heathen Philosophers 
in the place of the doctrines of the Gospel; 
and, in order to effect their purpose, had cor- 
rupted the Sacred Volume, or perverted its 
meaning by forced and unnatural interpreta- 
tions. 276 Tertullian uniformly insists that Christ 

275 De Praekcriptione Hsereticorum, cc. 6, 7- 

276 Ibid, cc 9; 13, 14. 



375 

had delivered one, and only one rule of faith — 
the rule which was to be found in the Scrip- 
tures. But here commenced the difference 
between himself and his opponents: they re- 
jected several Books of Scripture, which he 
deemed genuine, and put different interpre- 
tations upon those portions of Scripture which 
they, as well as he, received. 277 0n both these 
points Tertullian appealed to the authority of 
the Church; contending that in it as well the 
genuine Scriptures as their genuine interpreta- 
tion had been preserved: and further contend- 
ing, that 278 it was useless to seek the true 
interpretation among the Heretics, since they 
differed from each other as widely as they did 
from the Church. When, therefore, Tertullian 
refers to those bishops who ruled the Apostolic 
Churches, he does it, not for the purpose of 
laying aside the Sacred Writings, but of 
establishing their authority; and it is with the 
same view that he urges the plea of prescrip- 

*" Ibid. c. 36. 

278 c. 10. Another argument urged by Tertullian is 
founded on the nature of faith; which must, he says, have 
some ascertained truths for its object: those truths we 
must seek, and having found, must acquiesce in them. 
There must be a point, at which enquiry ceases, and faith 
begins. But with the Heretics it is one interminable 
search: they never attain to the truth; and consequently, 
having no fixed object of faith, have in reality no faith. 
cc 10. 14. 



376 

tion. He contends that the doctrines which 
had always been maintained, and the Scrip- 
tures which had always been received, in those 
Churches which were founded by the Apostles, 
were more likely to be true and genuine, than 
the doctrines and Scriptures of the Heretics, 
whose origin was known to be of very recent 
date. Wherein, let me ask, consists the fallacy 
of this mode of reasoning? or how can it pos- 
sibly be injurious to the cause of truth? If 
I can, through independent channels, trace 
back a doctrine to the age of the Apostles, 
and at the same time shew that it is con- 
tained in those Scriptures which have always 
been recognised as authentic by the Apostolic 
Churches, I have surely done much, not only 
towards proving its truth, but also towards 
confirming the genuineness of the Scriptures 
themselves. 

Mosheim 279 places the rise of the Ascetics 
in the second century ; and says that they were 
produced by the double doctrine of certain 
Christian moralists, who laid down two dif- 
ferent rules of life, the ordinary and the 
extraordinary : — the one adapted to the gene- 
ral mass of Christians, the other to those 
only of a more sublime and exalted character. 

279 Ubi supra, Sect 11, 12, 13, 14. 



377 

To the former class of doctrines they gave 
the name of Precepts ; which were obligatory 
upon all orders of men: — to the latter that of 
Counsels ; which were voluntarily obeyed by 
such Christians as aimed at higher degrees of 
virtue. Mosheim traces the origin of this 
double doctrine to the Platonic and Pytha- 
gorean schools of philosophy ; which taught 
that the continual aim of him, who aspired 
to the envied title of the sage or truly wise, 
must be to abstract his mind from the senses, 
and to raise it above the contagious influence 
of the body, which he was in consequence to 
extenuate by severe discipline and a spare diet. 
With the same view he was to withdraw 
himself from the world, and to affect a life of 
solitude and contemplation. In 280 our account 
of the tenets of Montanus we observed, that 
Clemens Alexandrinus was the earliest Christ- 
ian writer in whose works this distinction 
between the ordinary and the extraordinary 
rules of life is expressly laid down. Tertullian 
drew a distinction of a different kind, between 
spiritual and animal Christians — between those 
who received, and those who rejected, the pro- 
phecies of Montanus. Yet in the 281 second 

280 Chap. I. p. 34. 

281 Quanto autem nubere in Domino perpetrabile est uti 
nostree potestatis, tanto culpabilius est non observare quod 
possis. Eo accedit, quod Apostolus, de Viduis quidem et 

Innuptisj 



378 

Tract ad Uxorem we find him also distinguish- 
ing between precepts and counsels; or to use 
his own language, between jussa and suasa, 
and grounding the distinction upon St. Paul's 
expressions in 1 Cor. vii. Although, however, 
it is certain that the discipline of Montanus 
was of an ascetic character, and that great 
stress was laid in it upon fasts and other mor- 
tifications, we discover nothing in the writings 
of Tertullian from which we should infer that 
either the monastic or the eremitical mode of 
life was practised in his day. There is in the 
Apology a 282 passage which would rather lead 
to the opposite conclusion. 

The 283 rise of pious frauds is also placed 
by Mosheim in the second century, and 
in like manner ascribed to the pernicious 

Innuptis, ut ita permaneant suadet, quum dicit, Cupio autem 
omnes meo exemplo perseverare ; de nubendo vero in Domino 
quum dicit, tantum in Domino, jam non suadet, sed exerte 
jubet. Igitur in ista maxime specie, nisi obsequimur, peri- 
clitamur. Quia suasum impune quis negligat, quam jussum : 
quod illud de consilio veniat et voluntati proponatur, hoc 
autem de potestate descendat et necessitati obligetur: illic 
libertas, hie contumacia delinquere videatur, c. 1. 

282 Sed alio quoque injuriarum titulo postulamur, et infruc- 
tuosi in negotiis dicimur. Quo pacto? homines vobiscum 
degentes, ejusdem victus, habitus, instructus, ejusdem ad 
vitam necessitatis? neque enim Brachmanae, aut Indorum 
Gymnosophistac sumus, silvicola?, et exules vitae, c. 42. 

283 Ubi supra, Sect. 15. 



379 

influence of the Platonic philosophy. 284 Ter- 
tullian has recorded a fraud of this kind, prac- 
tised by a presbyter, who endeavoured to 
palm upon the Christian world a spurious 
work under the name of St. Paul. As he 
pronounces no severe condemnation upon the 
offender, it may be thought that he did not 
look upon the offence as of a very heinous 
character. Yet his writings appear to us to 
furnish no ground for affirming, that he is 
himself justly liable to the charge of practising 
similar deceptions. We can perceive in him 
extreme reluctance to admit any fact which 
militates against the cause which he is de- 
fending; and equal readiness to adopt without 
due examination whatever tends to promote 
his immediate purpose. But the same dispo- 
sitions are discernible in the controversialists 
of all ages ; and to make them the pretence 
for refusing credit to the Fathers in particular, 
is to display a great deficiency either in in- 
formation or in candour. 

In 285 his chapter on the Doctrine of the 
Church, Mosheim gives a short account of 
what he calls its penitential discipline. Having 
already discussed this subject in our account 

284 See note 129- of this Xhapter. 

285 Ubi supra, Sect. 17- 



380 

of the government of the Church, under which 
head it appeared more properly to fall, we 
shall now only remark, that we have found 
in Tertullian's writings no confirmation of 
Mosheim's assertion, that the Christian disci- 
pline began, even at that early period, to be 
modelled upon the forms observed in the 
heathen mysteries. 

In 286 his strictures upon the qualifications 
of the Fathers of the second century as moral 
writers, Mosheim alludes to the controversy 
between M. Barbeyrac and the Pere Cellier 
on that subject. On no one of the Fathers 
has M. Barbeyrac animadverted with greater 
severity than on our author; and an exami- 
nation of his charges will enable us to form 
a tolerably accurate estimate of the degree of 
deference which ought to be paid to the de- 
cisions of the Fathers in general, upon ques- 
tions of morals. 

But before we enter upon this examination, 
we must in justice to the early Fathers remark, 
that nothing can be more unfair or more un- 
reasonable than to require in them that per- 
spicuity of arrangement, or that precision of 
language, which we find in the moral writers 

m Sect. 10. note 



381 

of modern times. They never studied mora- 
lity as a system, nor did they profess to teach 
it systematically. 287 We ought also, before we 
censure them too harshly for their errors, duly 
to weigh the circumstances under which they 
wrote. 288 What we observed with respect to 
the extravagant terms, in which they speak 
of the merit of martyrdom, is no less appli- 
cable to the present subject. They lived at 
a time when the path of the professor of 
Christianity was beset with dangers : when he 
might at any moment be called to suffer pri- 
vation, pain, or even death, on account of his 
faith. It was of the utmost importance to 
the cause of the Gospel, that he should betray 
no unmanly fear in the hour of trial — no weak 
desire to consult his safety by the sacrifice 
of his principles. Nor was it less important 
that his moral character should be free from 
stain — that he should prove himself no less 

287 The just and candid mode of estimating the works of 
the Fathers, when not directly controversial, is to consider 
them, not as argumentative treatises, but as popular dis- 
courses ; in which the author is less solicitous to reason 
accurately, than to say what is striking and calculated to 
produce an effect upon his readers. Were we to subject 
many popular treatises on religion published at the present 
day, to the same severe scrutiny to which M. Barbeyrac has 
subjected the works of Tertullian, the illustrations, I fear, 
would sometimes be found as impertinent, the premises as 
unsound, and the conclusions as illogical. 

288 Chap. II. p. 154. 



382 

superior to the seductions of pleasure, than 
to the terrors of persecution. Yet instances 
of human frailty would frequently occur ; and 
the Fathers would be compelled to bewail 
the apostacy or the immorality of their bre- 
thren. Hence in their anxiety to avert the 
evil consequences to the Church, which must 
result from the weakness and vices of its 
members, they would, especially if, like Ter- 
tullian, they were men of austere tempers, 
be liable to run into extremes — 289 to imagine 
that the most effectual mode of preventing 
the convert from indulging in criminal gra- 
tifications was to persuade him that he must 
debar himself even of those which are inno- 
cent; and that the most effectual mode of 
preparing him for the trials, to which his 
profession might expose him, was to accus- 
tom him to a life of voluntary hardship and 
mortification. Let it not be supposed that we 
mean, by these remarks, to justify the extra- 
vagancies of which the Fathers were guilty; 
we offer them only in extenuation. 

We proceed to M. Barbeyrac — who grounds 
290 his first charge on the unqualified manner 
in which our author condemns every art and 

289 See the Tract de Spectaculis, c. 1. 

290 Traite de la Morale des^ Peres, c. 6. Sect. 5. 



383 

profession connected even in the most remote 
degree with the heathen idolatry. It cannot 
be denied that in some instances Tertullian's 
zeal carries him beyond all reasonable bounds; 
as 291 when he involves in the guilt of idolatry 
the unhappy trader in frankincense, because 
it was burned on the altars of the idols. He 
seems not to have perceived the clear dis- 
tinction between the case of the artificer who 
formed the idols, and of the merchant who 
dealt in any of the articles employed in ido- 
latrous worship. An idol is made in order 
that it may be worshipped, that is, for a for- 
bidden purpose; the very use for which it is 
designed is unlawful. But frankincense may 
be employed, as our author 292 himself admits, 

291 De Idololatria, c. 11. See the Apology/ c. 42. The 
trades and occupations which Tertullian in his Treatise de 
Idololatria states to be incompatible with the profession of 
the Gospel, are those of the makers of idols (c. 4 — 8.); of 
those who build, or in any way adorn, their temples or altars 
(c. 8.) ; of astrologers (c. Q.) ; of schoolmasters, among other 
reasons, because they taught the heathen mythology (c. 10.); 
of merchants, who deal in any article used in the worship 
of idols, as in frankincense, (c. 11.) According to Tertullian, 
no Christian could, without contracting guilt, pay or receive 
money on the legal days, because they were sacred to 
some heathen god (c. 13.); or suspend lamps or garlands 
at his door (c< 15.) He was also guilty of idolatry, if he 
either swore, or allowed himself to be adjured or blessed, 
by the name of any heathen God (cc. 20—22.) 

292 De Corona, c. 10. Et si me odor alicujus loci ofFen- 
derit, Arabia? aliquid incendo; sed non eodem ritu, nee 
eodem habitu, nee eodem apparatu, quo agitur apud idola. 



384 

on many occasions not only innocently, but 
beneficially. To burn it on the altar of an 
idol is not to use, but to abuse it; and the 
guilt of the abuse must rest with the pur- 
chaser: — to make the seller accountable for the 
purpose to which the buyer applies it is con- 
trary to every principle of reason and of justice. 
That Tertullian should have overlooked this 
distinction is the more remarkable, because in 
the same Treatise he has recourse to one nearly 
similar. He says, 293 that a Christian, may, with- 
out incurring guilt, be present, as a spectator, 
at the sacrifices with which it was customary 
to celebrate the assumption of the toga virilis, 
a marriage, or the naming of a child : because 
in these cases he is not invited expressly to 
attend the sacrifice, but to join in a ceremony 
which has in it nothing of an idolatrous 
character. Before, however, we proceed too 
severely to censure Tertullian for the error, 
which is the subject of M. Barbeyrac's animad- 
version, let us endeavour for a moment to put 
ourselves in his place. For this purpose, we 
must imagine to ourselves the 294 feelings with 
which the primitive Christians regarded the 
worship paid to the gods of the nations: — the 
pious horror which they felt when they saw 

293 De Idololatria, c. 16. Compare de Spectaculis, c. 8. 
394 See ad Martyres, c. 2. De Corona, c. 10. 



385 

the homage, due only to the Creator, trans- 
ferred to an idol, the work of man's hands. 
They were moreover aware of the strong 
hold which idolatry possessed upon mankind, 
through the gratifications which it afforded to 
their sensual appetites; and were, therefore, 
desirous to place the convert as far as possible 
out of the reach of its temptations. 295 Some- 
times in their anxiety to guard themselves and 
others from pollution, they might perplex their 
minds with unfounded scruples, or subject 
themselves to unnecessary restraints. But we 
shall perhaps be induced to think more favour- 
ably even of their discretion, when we reflect 
that, had their descendants persisted in the 
same stedfast determination to hold no inter- 
course with idolatry, neither would the friends 
of the Gospel have occasion to lament that, 
for a long series of years, a gaudy ritual, cal- 
culated only to affect the senses, was sub- 
stituted almost universally in the place of 
its pure and spiritual worship : nor would its 
enemies be enabled to object that the mytho- 
logy and superstitious practices of Pagan Rome 
still subsist, changed only in name, throughout 
the larger portion of Christendom. 

295 On the subject of intercourse with Gentiles, and com- 
pliance with Gentile customs, see de Idololatria, c. 14. and 
de Cultu Foeminarum, L. ii. c. 11. 

Bb 



386 

M. Barbeyrac's 296 second charge relates to 
Tertullian's notions respecting the incompati- 
bility of a military life with the profession of 
Christianity. Having 297 in our remarks upon 
the thirty-seventh Article of our Church, ex- 
posed the weakness of the grounds on which 
he maintained this opinion, we have now 
nothing further to add on the subject. 

The 298 Treatise de Corona Militis furnishes 
M. Barbeyrac with matter for another charge 
against Tertullian. 299 When the Emperors 
distributed largesses to the army, it was cus- 
tomary for the soldiers to appear with crowns 
of laurel on their heads. A Christian soldier 
on an occasion of this kind, instead of wear- 
ing the crown upon his head, bore it in his 
hand. Being questioned why he was guilty 
of this breach of discipline, he replied that 
his religion would not allow him to wear a 
crown. Persisting in his refusal to place it 
on his head, he was thrown into prison and 
sentenced to death. His conduct appears to 
have been disapproved by the majority of his 
Christian brethren. The warm and vehement 
temper of Tertullian led him to view it in 

296 Ubi supra, Sect. 6. et seq. 29 ? p. 360. 

298 Ubi supra, Sect. 14. et seq. 
599 De Corona Militis, c. 1. 



387 

a very different light. He regarded the sol- 
dier's refusal as an act of truly Christian 
heroism and self-devotion ; and imputed the 
censures which were cast upon it to the luke- 
warmness and pusillanimity of the censurers. 
The reasons by which he justifies the act are 
not, it is true, of the most satisfactory nature. 
300 He admits that the Scriptures are silent 
on the subject, but says that it was not cus- 
tomary for Christians to wear crowns ; and 
urges this fact as a proof that the tradition 
of the Church was unfavourable to such a 
practice. 501 He next contends that flowers, of 
which crowns were for the most part composed, 
were intended to gratify the senses of sight 
and smell; consequently, to weave them into 
garlands and to wear them on the head is 
to pervert them from their natural use, by 
placing them in a situation in which they can 
neither be seen nor smelt. But as this argu- 
ment would apply only to crowns composed 
of flowers, he 302 proceeds to enumerate the 
different heathen gods to whom the invention 
of the different crowns was ascribed. Orna- 
ments, originally suggested by daemons, and 
still consecrated to their service, could not 

300 cc. 2, 3, 4. Compare Apology, c. 42. Non emo capiti 
eoronam, &c. 

301 cc. 5, 6. 302 cc. 7/8. 

BB 2 



388 

be fit for the head of a Christian. 303 "We 
find," he continues, "no evidence in the Old 
Testament that crowns were ever worn by the 
prophets or priests, or suspended in the tem- 
ple, or placed upon the ark or altar, or upon 
any part of the furniture of the sacred edifice." 
304 He enquires lastly into the occasions on 
which crowns were worn, and discovers that the 
practice was always connected either with some 
idolatrous observance, or some secular art, or 
profession, or employment, which was forbidden 
to Christians. The point upon which the whole 
question really turned — whether, in the par- 
ticular case under consideration, to have worn 
a crown, would have implied a participation in 
an idolatrous act — is scarcely touched by Ter- 
tullian. 305 He calls it indeed an idolatrous act, 
but does not state wherein the idolatry con- 
sisted. For further information on this point, 
the reader may consult 306 Bingham; who says 
that it was purely a civil act, performed in 
honor of the Emperors on such days as they 
gave their largesses or donations to the soldiers. 
307 Milner regards it in the same light, and 
pronounces an unqualified condemnation of 

303 c# 10 . 304 c. 11. et seq. 

305 See c. 12. 306 L. xvi. c. 4. Sect. 8. 

3 °7 Vol. I. 315. 



389 

the opinions advanced by Tertullian in this 
Treatise. . 

Among our author's works is a Tract 
written for the express purpose of proving 
that a Christian could not, without incurring 
a certain degree of guilt, attend any of the 
public games. 308 The principal reason which 
he assigns is, that all those games — having been 
originally instituted, and continuing to be 
celebrated in honour of some god — must be re- 
garded as idolatrous ceremonies; all, therefore, 
who attended them were necessarily involved 
in the guilt of idolatry. This, however, is not 
his only argument. 309 He reasons also upon 
the moral effect of the games, and upon the 
tumult of passions which they were calculated 
to excite in the bosom of the spectator; who 
could scarcely fail to be transported as it were 
out of himself, and to give way by turns to 
hope and fear, to sorrow and resentment. On 
two passages of this Tract, Gibbon has con- 
ferred celebrity by his animadversions. We 
shall offer a few remarks upon one of them, 

308 De Spectaculis, c. 4. The strange application of 
Psalm i. in c. 3. is deserving of notice, as a specimen of the 
mode in which the Fathers wrested Scriptures to their 
purpose. Compare the Apology, c. 38. where all the argu- 
ments, urged in the Tract de Spectaculis, are comprised 
in two sentences. 309 c. 15. 



390 

as it illustrates an opinion to which we shall 
hereafter have occasion to allude. Gibbon 
310 says that Tertullian " is particularly offended 
at the dress of the actors, who by the use of 
the buskin impiously endeavoured to add a 
cubit to their stature." Now in the passage 
alluded to, our author is establishing the point 
on which his whole argument turns — the con- 
nexion of all the public games, and among the 
rest of the theatrical exhibitions, with idolatry. 
He had previously traced their origin to Satan : 
he now proceeds to shew that the author of evil 
suggested the pomp and circumstance of the 
public exhibitions — the chariot race — the various 
gymnastic exercises — the dress of the actors, the 
buskin, the mask, &c. In all these devices 
Satan availed himself of the partial discoveries 
which he had been able to make, of what 
Christ would say, and do, and suffer, on earth : 
accommodating his suggestions to those dis- 
coveries — 3n sometimes deceiving mankind by 
an imitation of Christian rites — at others be- 
traying them into a violation of the precepts 
of the Gospel. 5U Thus, anticipating as it were 

310 Chap. XV. note 41. See Barbeyrac, Traite de la Mo- 
rale des Peres, c. 6. Sect. 20. 

311 Compare ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 7- sub fine. 

312 Sic et tragcedos cothurnis extulit (Diabolus) quia nemo 
potest adjicere cubitum unum ad staturam suam. Men- 
dacem facere vult Christum. 



391 

Christ's declaration, that no man can add a 
cubit to his stature, he invented the buskin; 
in order that, through the medium of the 
actors who wore it, he might practically make 
Christ a liar. Gibbon's remark scarcely con- 
veys a correct notion of Tertullian's object; 
which is to caution men against taking part 
in the theatrical exhibitions, lest they should 
unconsciously render themselves the instru- 
ments of the devil. The other passage, quoted 
by 313 Gibbon, is from the concluding chapter 
of the Tract; and is a striking specimen of 
Tertullian's vehemence and proneness to exag- 
geration. 

Having 314 already considered, what is suf- 
ficiently obnoxious to censure, Tertullian's 
notion that Christians ought neither to aspire 
to, nor to accept any civil office, we shall 
proceed to his condemnation of second mar- 
riages, which furnishes 515 M. Barbeyrac with 
ample matter of animadversion. On this sub- 
ject, as we have before observed, we find a 
gradually increasing severity in our author's 
opinions. 316 In our brief notice of the two 
Tracts ad Uxorem, we stated, that in the 

313 Chap. XV. p. 474. Ed. 4to. 

314 p. 359. 315 Ubi supra, Sect. 30. et seq. 



316 



Chap. I. p. 48. 



392 

former Tertullian dissuades his wife, in case 
she should survive him, from contracting a 
second marriage ; in the latter, fearful that she 
might be unwilling to impose upon herself 
so great a restraint, he cautions her at least 
not to marry a heathen. 317 Such a marriage 
he brands with the name of adultery; appeal- 
ing, in support of this harsh sentence, to 
1 Cor. vii. 39. where the Apostle says that 
a widow may marry whom she will, tantum in 
Domino, only in the Lord, that is, according to 
our author's interpretation, only a Christian. 

In the Treatise de Exhortatione Castitatis, 
written after he had become a Montanist, but 
probably before he had adopted the opinions of 
Montanus in all their rigour, he proceeds a step 
further. The name of adultery, which he had 
before applied to a marriage contracted with 
a heathen, he now applies 318 to second mar- 

317 Ad Uxorem, L. ii. cc. 2, 3. Haec quum ita sint, 
Fideles Gentilium matrimonia subeuntes stupri reos esse 
constat et arcendos ab orani communicatione fraternitatis, ex 
Uteris Apostoli dicentis, cum ejusmodi nee cibum sumendum. 
Compare adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 7. De Monogamia, 
cc. .7. 11. 

318 Si penitus sensus ejus interpretemur, non aliud dicen- 
uum erit secundum matrimonium, quam species stupri — 
Ergo, inquis, jam et primas, id est, unas nuptias destruis; 
nee immerito : quoniam et ipsse ex eo constant quo et stu- 
prum, c. 9. See also c 4. 



393 

riages in general : and that for reasons, some of 
which, as he himself admits, are equally appli- 
cable to a first marriage. The object of the 
Treatise is to dissuade a Christian brother, who 
had lost his wife, from marrying again. " There 
are," 319 Tertullian says, " three degrees of holi- 
ness : — the first exists in those, who have con- 
tinued chaste from their birth — the second in 
those, who have continued chaste from their 
second birth, that is, their baptism ; either 
separated from their wives, if living, by mutual 
compact; or remaining single, if they have 
lost their wives — the third in those, who hav- 
ing been once married (after baptism) do not 
marry again." One of the arguments, urged 
in this Treatise, affords a striking example of 
the fallacious reasoning by which Tertullian 
occasionally imposed upon himself. 320 "You 
have lost your wife," he says ; " it was, there- 
fore, the will of God that you should become 
a widower: by marrying again you cease to 
be a widower, and thereby strive against the 

319 c. 1. It is worthy of remark, that M. Barbeyrac 
agrees with Tertullian in asserting, that a person, who has 
once been married, has a stronger inducement to contract 
a second marriage, than an unmarried person has to marry. 
Compare ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 8. and de Virgin, vel. c 10. 
with the Traite de la Morale des Peres, c. 4. Sect. 30. 

320 c. 2. Compare ad Uxorem, L. i. c 7- De Monogamia, 
c 9- 



394 

will of God." — 321 A considerable portion of the 
Tract is occupied by a commentary on the 
seventh chapter of the first Epistle to the 
Corinthians; the design of which is to shew 
that, when St. Paul asserted, as a reason for 
allowing a second marriage, that " it is better to 
marry than burn," he evidently regarded such 
a marriage merely as the less of two evils. In 
the course of this commentary, Tertullian alludes 
to the distinction made by the Apostle between 
that which he delivered from himself, and that 
which he delivered from the Lord. In the 
latter case, he thinks that St. Paul spoke from 
the extraordinary inspiration which was pecu- 
liar to him as an Apostle: in the former, only 
as an ordinary Christian, possessing the ordi- 
nary gifts of the Spirit. I notice this circum- 
stance because the late Mr. Rennell, in his 
Proofs of Inspiration, &c, has referred to this 
passage of Tertullian, in a manner which 
may lead his readers to form a very erroneous 
notion of its real purport. 322 Mr. Rennell — 
whose object is to prove that what St. Paul de- 
livered as from himself was equally the dictate 
of Divine inspiration with that which he de- 
livered as from the Lord— says that "the Apo- 

321 c. 3. Compare ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 3. 

322 p. 28. with the note. The part quoted by Mr. Ren- 
nell is from Quum continentiam indicit — to fastigium red- 
deret. 



395 

stle decided the question concerning virgins, 
in 1 Cor. vii. 25. , not as an ordinary man, but 
as one who had obtained mercy to be faithful; 
by which expression he meant to assert the 
grace and authority of an inspired minister 
and Apostle." Let us now turn to Tertullian — 
who begins his remarks with the following 
words; 325 In primis autem non videbor irre- 
ligiosus, si, quod ipse profitetur, animadvertam, 
omnem ilium indulgentiam nuptiarum de suo, 
id est, de humano sensu, non de divino pree- 
scripto induxisse. He then proceeds to comment 
upon several verses of the chapter, and con- 
cludes with the passage, part of which has 
been quoted by Mr. Rennell: Sed ecce rursus, 
mulierem marito defuncto dicit nubere posse, 
si cui velit, tantum in Domino. Atenim feli- 
cior erit, inquit, si sic permanserit secundum 
meum consilium. Puto autem, et ego Dei Spi- 
ritum habeo. Videmus duo consilia, quo supra 
nubendi veniam facit, et quo postmodum con- 
tinentiam nubendi indicit. Cui ergo, inquis, 
adsentabimur ? Inspice et lege. Quum veniam 
facit, hominis prudentis consilium adlegat. Quum 
continentiam indicit, Spiritus Sancti consilium 
adfirmat. Sequere admonitionem cui divinitas 
patrocinatur. Spiritum quidem Dei etiam 
fideles habent, sed non omnes f deles Apostoli. 



396 

Quum ergo qui se fidelem dixerat, adjicit postea 
Spiritum Dei se habere, quod nemo dubitaret 
etiam de fideli, idcirco id dixit, ut sibi Apo- 
stoli fastigium redderet. 324 Proprie enim Apo- 
stoli Spiritum Sanctum habent in operibus 
prophetise, et efficacia virtutum, documentisque 
linguarum; non ex parte, quod ceeteri. Now 
it must be evident to every person who reads 
the above extract, that 525 Tertullian agrees with 
Mr. Rennell only in one particular— that in the 
expression — I think that I have the Spirit of 
God — St. Paul meant to assert his own inspi- 
ration. On two important points our author 
is directly opposed to 326 Mr. Rennell. In the 

324 Does Tertullian here mean to assert that none but 
the Apostles possessed miraculous gifts ? or that all those 
gifts were united in the Apostles, which other Christians 
possessed only in part, with reference to 1 Cor. xii. 4. &c. ? 

325 Compare de Pudicitia, c. 16. De Monogamia, c. 3. 

326 There is in the Tract de Coronft a passage, in which 
Tertullian makes a nearer approach to Mr. Rennell's opinion. 
Dicit et Apostolus, si quid ignoratis, Deus vobis revelabit, 
solitus et ipse consilium subministrare, quum pra?ceptum 
Domini non habebat, et qucedam edicere a semetipso, sed et 
ipse Spiritum Dei habens deductor^em omnis veritatis. Itaque 
consilium et edictum ejus divini jam prsecepti instar obtinuit, 
de rationis divinae patrocinio, c. 4. In this passage our au- 
thor's object is to place observances, for which no written 
command could be produced from Scripture, on the same 
footing with those for which such command could be pro- 
duced; on the ground that they were probably enjoined 
by the Apostles, and were consequently to be deemed of 
divine origin. His language varies with the object which 
he has in view. 



397 

first place, Tertullian makes a decided distinc- 
tion between the advice given by St. Paul as 
a prudent or sagacious man, and that given by 
him at the suggestion of the Holy Spirit. In 
the second, so far was he from thinking 
that the Apostle, when he spoke of him- 
self as one who had obtained mercy to be 
faithful, meant to assert the grace and autho- 
rity of an inspired minister and Apostle ; that 
by the word Fideles he understood an ordinary 
Christian, as contra-distinguished from an Apo- 
stle, who was endowed with extraordinary 
gifts. Let me here observe, that I am not 
contending for the accuracy of Tertullian's 
interpretation: I am only anxious that his 
testimony, if urged at all, should be correctly 
stated. 

But to proceed to the Tract de Mono- 
gamia, in which Tertullian pursues nearly the 
same line of argument as in the Tract de 
Exhortatione Castitatis; but with greater ex- 
travagance both of sentiment and language, 
because he was then in a state of avowed 
separation from the Church. He affirms 
327 for instance, that, in point of criminality, it 

327 Neque enim refert duas quis uxores singulas habuerit^ 
an pariter singula? duas fecerint. Idem numerus conjuncto- 
rum et separatorum. Semel tamen vim passa institutio Dei 
per Lamech constitit postea in finem usque gentis illius, c. 4, 



398 

is immaterial whether a man has two wives 
at the same time, or marries a second wife 
after the death of the first. He urges also 
the example of Christ, who 528 was unmarried 
in the flesh; if, therefore, we aim at his per- 
fection, we must also remain unmarried : but 
if the infirmity of our flesh will not allow 
this, we must follow in the flesh the exam- 
ple which he has set us in the spirit. He 
has one Spiritual Spouse, the Church ; we, 
therefore, must be content with a single mar- 
riage. In our remarks upon the thirty-second 
Article of our Church, we noticed the differ- 
ent interpretations of 1 Cor. ix. 5. given by 
Tertullian in the Tracts de Exhortatione Cas- 
titatis and de Monogamia. Towards the con- 
clusion, however, of the latter Tract, a sus- 
picion appears to cross his mind, that his 
expositions of St. Paul are far-fetched, and 
may not be satisfactory to his readers. 5 ~ 9 In 
order, therefore, to silence all gainsayers, he 
adds that, as Christ took away the liberty of 
divorce, in which Moses had indulged the 
Jews on account of the hardness of their 

328 Quando novissimus Adam, id est Christus, innuptus in 
totunx, quod etiam primus Adam ante exilium, c. 5. He ap- 
plies the name Spado to Christ (see also c. 3.) as well as to St. 
Paul (ibid.) and to John the Baptist (c 17«) but evidently 
not in the literal sense of the word. 

329 Cm U> 



399 

hearts; so the Paraclete now takes away that 
liberty of contracting a second marriage, 
which St. Paul had allowed the members of 
the infant Church of Corinth on account of 
the infirmity of their flesh. 

The train of reasoning, if it may so be 
called, which conducted the early Fathers to 
these strange conclusions, was, according to 
330 M. Barbeyrac, somewhat of the following 
kind. They observed that men were impelled 
to the commission of many irregularities and 
crimes, by the desire of gratifying certain ap- 
petites which constitute a part of human 
nature. They could not condemn the appe- 
tites themselves without at the same time 
condemning the author of nature; they hit, 
therefore, upon another expedient. They said 
that those appetites were given us for parti- 
cular ends— the appetite of hunger, for instance, 
in order to preserve the life of man, — the 
sexual appetite in order to ensure the con- 
tinuance of the human species. So long then 
as the acts, which originate in those appe- 
tites, are performed solely with reference to 
the ends for which the appetites were given, 
all is right. But the instant that we annex 
the idea of pleasure to the act, and perform 

330 c. 4. Sect. 34, 35. 



400 

it with a view to the gratification which we 
shall derive from it, then it becomes sinfuL 
That this is a correct account of the mode in 
which many of the Fathers reasoned, may be 
true, and we may discern some traces of it 
in Tertullians writings. But it is certain 
that he also attached a 531 degree of impurity 
to the act itself, without any reference to the 
purpose for which it was performed — a cer- 
tain incompatibility with the perfection of the 
Christian character. He regards marriage as 
only allowed under the Gospel, in condescen- 
sion to human infirmity. 352 "The union of 
the sexes was, it is true, in the beginning 
blessed by God; being devised for the pur- 
pose of peopling the earth, and on that ac- 
count permitted. The Patriarchs were even 
allowed to have a plurality of wives. Then 
came the Law ; and afterwards the Gospel, 
which restrained the licence before given, and 
confined a man to one wife. Lastly, the 



331 Speaking of the intercourse between the sexes even 
in the married state, he uses the expressions contumeliam. 
communem. De Virg. vel. c. 10. Dedecoris voluptuosi. Ad 
Uxorem, L. i. c. 1. He argues also that it unfits the soul for 
devotional exercises. De Exhortatione Castitatis, cc. Q, 10. 
He calls it on one occasion permissara voluptatem. De 
Cultu Fceminarum, L. ii. c. 9- 

332 Ad Uxorera, L. i. cc. 2, 3. See also c. 4. De Exhor- 
tatione Castitatis, cc. 5, 6. De Monogamia, c. 3. 



401 

Apostle, as speaking to those upon whom the 
ends of the world were come, did not in- 
deed forbid marriage, lest man should be 
tempted to sin ; but recommended a life of 
celibacy, as best suited to the situation of 
Christians in seasons of difficulty and 333 per- 
secution." The inference which our author 
draws from this historical sketch is, that the 
Apostle's permission to marry was not willingly 
given, but extorted by necessity. 

But though Tertullian attached a degree 
of impurity even to the married state, and 
334 would certainly have enforced a total absti- 
nence from marriage if the human species 
could have been continued without it, as he 
would have prohibited eating and drinking if 
the life of man could have been sustained with- 
out food — yet we find occasionally in his writings 
passages of a different complexion. In 335 the 
second Tract ad Uxorem, he breaks out into 
a glowing description of the blessedness of that 

333 We have seen that in the Tract de Monogamil, cc 2, 
3, 14. Tertullian states that it was reserved for the Paraclete 
to prohibit second marriages. During the ministry of our 
Blessed Lord, men were not yet able to bear so severe a 
restraint. 

334 Nos quoque, ut possumus, os cibo excusamus, &c. De 
Res. Carnis, c. 6l. Compare de Jejuniis, c. 3. 

335 Unde sufficiamus ad enarrandam felicitatem ejus matri- 
monii, quod Ecclesia conciliate &c. ? c. 9. 

Cc 



402 

marriage, in the celebration of which none of 
the forms required by the Church has been 
omitted; and 336 in other places he speaks of 
the married state, not only as pure, but even 
honourable. As 337 we remarked with reference 
to another subject, Tertullian's language varies 
with the object which he has in view. When 
he speaks his genuine sentiments, he exag- 
gerates the merit of celibacy; and speaks of 
the married state as rather permitted, than 
approved by God. But 338 when he is con- 

336 Natura veneranda est, non erubescenda. Concubitura 
libido, non conditio fcedavit. Excessus, non status, est im- 
pudicus. Siquidem benedictus status apud Deum : Crescite et 
in multitudinem prqficite. Excessus vero maledictus — adulteria, 
et stupra, et lupanaria. De Anima, c. 27. Sanctitas — quae 
non matrimonium excludat, sed libidinem — qua? vas nostrum 
in honore matrimonii tractet. Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 15. 

337 See note 326. of this Chapter. 

338 De Monogamia, sub initio. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. 
c. 29. Sine dubio ex damnatione conjugii ista institutio 
(the Marcionite custom of refusing baptism to married per- 
sons) constabit. Videamus, an justa: non quasi destructuri 
felicitatem sanctitatis, ut aliqui Nicolaitse, assertores libidinis at- 
que luxuriae ; sed qui sanctitatem sine nuptiarum damnatione 
noverimus, et sectemur, et praeferamus, non ut malo bonum, 
sed ut bono melius; non enim projicimus, sed deponimus 
nuptias ; nee praescribimus, sed suademus sanctitatem ; servan- 
tes et bonum et melius pro viribus cujusque sectando: tunc 
denique conjugium exerte defendentes, quum inimice ac- 
cusatur spurcitiae nomine in destructionem Creatoris, qui 
proinde conjugium pro rei honestate benedixit in cremen- 
tum generis humani, quemadmodum et universum condi- 
tions in integros et bonos usus. Non ideo autem et cibi 
damnabuntur, quia operosius exquisiti in gulam committunt ; 
ut nee vestitus ideo accusabuntur, quia pretiosius comparati 



403 

tending against Marcion and the other Here- 
tics, who condemned marriage altogether, as 
an institution of the Demiurge who was op- 
posed to the Supreme God, he stands forth 
in its defence; though he still asserts the 
superior purity of a life of celibacy. 

We will take this opportunity of intro- 
ducing two observations in some measure con- 
nected with the subject immediately before us. 
The first is, 339 that in Tertullian's time the 
practice of making vows of continence had 
already commenced, and 540 had been found to 
be productive of evil consequences. The 
females who made such vows were called 
541 Brides of Christ The second observation 

in ambitionem tumescunt. Sic nee matrimonii res ideo des- 
puentur, quia, intemperantius diffusa? in luxuriam inardescunt. 
Multum differt inter causam et culpam, inter statum et ex- 
cessum. Ita hujusmodi non institution sed exorbitatio, re- 
probanda est, secundum censuram institutoris ipsius, cujus 
est tarn, Crescite et multiplicamini, quam et, Non adulter abis, 
et uxorem proximi tut non concupisces. Here we find an ap- 
proach to the mode of reasoning which M. Barbeyrac 
imputes to the Fathers. 

339 Viderit et ipsum continentiae votum. De Virgin, vel. 
c. 11. mo g ee de Virgin, vel. c. 14. 

341 Quot Virgines Christo maritatae? De Res. Carnis, 
c. 61. Malunt enim Deo nubere, Deo speciosae, Deo sunt 
puellae, &c. Ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 4. Generally, however, 
such expressions as Christi solius ancillae. De Virgin, vel. 
c. 3. Dei ancillae. De Cultu Fceminarum, L. i. c. 4. L. ii. 
cc. 1, 11. Nuptae Christo. De Virgin, vel. c. 16. Benedictae. 
De Cultu Fceminarum, L. ii. c. 5. Filiae sapientia?. ibid. c. 6. 

C C 2 Fceminae 



404 

is, that the Roman Catholic notion of the 
indissolubility of marriage was then unknown. 
Tertullian 542 on all occasions affirms that it 
may be dissolved on account of adultery: 
and though his peculiar tenets would natu- 
rally lead him to deny to either party the 
liberty of marrying again, yet 343 he admits 
that such marriages actually took place in the 
Church. 

Two charges which M. Barbeyrac brings 
against Tertullian remain to be mentioned. 
One is, that, in opposition to our Saviour's 
express injunction, he passes a sentence of 
condemnation upon all who in time of per- 
secution consult their safety by flight. The 
other, that he advances opinions so extra- 
vagant and irrational on the subject of 
Christian patience that, were they generally 
adopted, the effect must be to place the 
honest and peaceable part of the community 

Foeminae ad Deum pertinentes. Ad Uxorem, L. i. c. 1. mean 
only Christian females, as ancilla Diabolic De Cultu Foam. 
L. ii. c. 11. means a heathen female, and Angeli Dei, ibid. 
c. 3. Christians in general. 

342 Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 2. De Monogamia, c. 9. Tarn 
repudio matrimonium dirimente quam morte. De Patienti&, 
c. 12. 

343 Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 1. Quarumdam exemplis admo- 
nentibus, quae divortio vel mariti excessu oblata continentiae 
occasione, &c. 



405 

at the mercy of the robber and ruffian. 344 In 
our remarks upon the External History of the 
Church we gave an account of Tertullian's 
opinions on the former of those points; and 
with respect to the M5 latter, it will be suffi- 
cient to observe, that his error appears to have 
arisen partly from too close an adherence to 
the letter of our Saviour's injunctions; and 
partly from a strange misapprehension of their 
meaning. 

We will conclude our review of M. Bar- 
beyrac's animadversions, by observing that he 
seems to have overlooked a passage 346 in the 
fourth Book against Marcion ; in which Ter- 
tullian argues, from a passage in Ezekiel, that 
no interest ought to be taken for the loan 
of money. 

344 Chap. II. p. 147- 

345 See the Tract de Patientia, cc. 7, 8, 10. In this 
Tract, which is a panegyric upon patience, Tertullian exhorts 
his readers to the practice of that virtue, by setting forth the 
forbearance which God at all times exerts towards sinful 
man ; and the patience exhibited by Christ in taking upon 
him human flesh, and submitting to every indignity during 
his residence on earth. There are, however, some passages 
not unworthy of attention, as c. 9. in which Tertullian en- 
forces the duty of patience under the loss of relations and 
friends. 

34(i c. 17. There is an ambiguity in Tertullian's expres- 
sions ; but we believe that we have given the true meaning. 



CHAP. VI. 



ON THE CEREMONIES USED IN THE CHURCH. 



JVLosheim, 1 in the beginning of his Chapter 
on the Ceremonies of the Church in the 
second century, observes, that "in this cen- 
tury many unnecessary ceremonies were added 
to the Christian worship, the introduction of 
which was extremely offensive to wise and 
good men." In support of this statement, he 
refers to a passage in the Tract de Oratione; 
in which Tertullian complains that various 
forms and observances had been introduced 
into the Christian worship, of which some 
bore too close a resemblance to the customs 
and practices of the Gentiles. Of these ob- 
servances he specifies several — 2 the practice, for 
instance, of washing the hands, or even the 
whole body, before the commencement of 
prayer; which he calls a superstitious prac- 

1 Century II. Part II. Chap. IV. 

2 De Oratione, c. 11. Compare de Baptismo, c. Q. sub 
fine. Quum deditur in crucem, aqua intervenit ; sciunt Pilati 
man us. 



407 

tice, originally suggested by the act of Pilate 
when he delivered up Christ to the Jews; 
and consequently unfit to be adopted by 
Christians : — 3 and that of putting off the cloke 
before the commencement of prayer, which he 
disapproves because the heathens had a similar 
custom. He assigns the same reason for ob- 
jecting to the practice of sitting down after 
the conclusion of the public prayers ; though 
he supposes its introduction into the Church 
to have arisen from a misapprehension of a 
passage in the Shepherd of Hermas. 

From the passage just alluded to and 
from other passages of Tertullian's works, it 
appears that, in the act of prayer, 4 the 
early Christians raised their hands to heaven, 
and expanded them in imitation of the mode 
in which our Saviour's arms were stretched 
upon the cross. They 5 usually prayed in 



3 c. 12. 

4 Nos vero non attollimus tantum, sed etiam expandi- 
mus, a dominica passione modulantes. De Oratione, c. 11. 
sub fine. Apology, c. 30. manibus expansis. Ad Marcionem, 
L. i. c. 23. sub fine. 

5 De Corona, c. 3. Ad Scapulam, c. 4. Quando non geni- 
culationibus et jejunationibus nostris etiam siccitates sunt 
depulsae ? In the second Tract ad Uxorem, c. 9- we find 
the word volutari applied to the act of prayer. Simul orant, 
simul volutantur. Compare Pseudo-Justinus, Quaestiones ad 
Orthodoxos, c. 115. 



408 

a kneeling posture; excepting on the Lord's 
day, and in the interval between Easter and 
Whitsunday: they then prayed standing, in 
commemoration of the resurrection of our 
Lord from the dead. The 6 men prayed with 
the head uncovered. With respect to the 
women, different customs appear to have pre- 
vailed in different Churches: in some even 
the virgins were unveiled; but 7 in the Tract 
de Virginibus velandis, Tertullian inveighs 
vehemently against the indecency and irrever- 
ence of this practice. It 8 was customary also, 
in the act of prayer, to turn the face towards 
the east ; a practice borrowed, according to 
9 Mosheim, from the eastern nations, who con- 
ceived light to be the essence of the Su- 
preme, and therefore worshipped the sun as 
the image of his glory. We 10 have seen 
that this practice gave rise to a very general 
persuasion among the Gentiles, that the Christ- 



6 Capite nudo. Apology, c. SO. 

7 c. 2. See de Corona, c. 4. 

8 Apology, c. 16. Ad Nationes, L. i. c. 13. 

9 Century II. Part II. Chap. IV. Sect. 7- There is in 
the Tract against the Valentmians, c. 3. the following re- 
mark : Amat figura Spiritus Sancti (Columba) Orientem, 
Christi figuram, referring perhaps to Zechariah iii. 8. 
/ will bring forth my servant the branch. The word cor- 
responding to branch in the Septuagint is dwToXtjv. 

10 Chap. II. p. 124. 



409 

ians worshipped the sun. After the prayers 
were concluded, the n persons present usually 
saluted each other with the kiss of peace; 
excepting on Good Friday, which was ob- 
served as a solemn fast by every member of 
the Church. Tertullian censures the affecta- 
tion of those who, at other seasons, refused 
the kiss of peace, on the ground that they 
had kept a fast. 

Having alluded to the Tract de Oratione, 
we will take this opportunity of mentioning 
that the greater part of it is occupied by 
12 a Commentary on the Lord's Prayer. After 
some preliminary remarks on the injunctions 
to pray in secret and not to use long prayers, 
by which the Lord's prayer is introduced 
in the Gospel, Tertullian observes that this 
form, concise as it is, contains an epitome of 
the whole Christian doctrine. In commenting 
upon the different clauses, our author dis- 
plays an extensive knowledge of Scripture ; 
but for the most part little judgement in the 

11 Alia jam consuetudo invaluit; jejunantes, habita ora- 
tione cum fratribus, subtrahunt osculum pacis, quod est 
signaculum orationis. De Oratione, c. 14. Jam vero alicui 
fratrum ad osculum convenire. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4. 
From the latter quotation we might infer that the Christ- 
ian mode of salutation was by a kiss. 

12 There are also some remarks on the Lord's Prayer, 
in the fourth Book against Marcion, c. 26. 



410 

application. 13 He concludes with stating that, 
although in our devotions we must on no 
account omit this prayer, yet we may add 
to it such petitions as are suitable to our 
particular circumstances; H remembering always 
that, in order to render our prayers accept- 
able to God, we must approach him in a 
right frame of mind — with hearts free from 
anger and every other evil passion. In ad- 
dition to these remarks upon the spirit in 
which men ought to pray, 15 he offers some 
cautions against all extravagance of gesture 
in putting up our prayers to the throne of 
grace. Our gesture and countenance ought 
to bespeak humility and modesty. He says 
also, that we should be careful not to pray 



13 c. 9- 14 c. 10. 

15 c. 13. In Semler's Edition, the Tract de Oratione con- 
tains nine additional Chapters, which were published by 
Muratori ; of these the first two relate to the question whether 
Virgins ought to wear veils in the Church, and are little else 
than an epitome of the Tract de Virginibus velandis; the 
third to the practice of kneeling in the act of prayer; the 
fourth to the place, the fifth to the hour of prayer ; the sixth 
to the propriety of not allowing a Christian brother to quit the 
house without joining in prayer ; the seventh to the custom of 
saying Halleluiah at the conclusion of our prayers; in the 
eighth, prayer is stated to be the spiritual sacrifice, by which 
the ancient sacrifices were superseded ; the ninth relates to the 
efficacy of prayer. From the style and tone of these addi- 
tional chapters, I should infer that they were not written 
by Tertullian. 



411 

in so loud a tone of voice as to disturb the 
devotions of those near us. It is not by rea- 
son of the strength of our lungs that our 
prayers reach the ear of the Almighty. 

In speaking of the Christian assemblies, 
16 Mosheim gives the following account of 
the purposes for which they were held. 
"During the sacred meetings of the Christ- 
ians, prayers were repeated ; the Holy Scrip- 
tures were publicly read ; select discourses upon 
the duties of Christians were addressed to 
the people: hymns were sung; and a portion 
of the oblations, presented by the faithful, 
was employed in the celebration of the Lord's 
Supper and the feast of charity." We need 
scarcely remind the reader that this account 
is merely an epitome of 17 a passage in the 
Apology ; which was given in the Chapter on 
the Government of the Church, 

There is, however, in the Apology, an 
expression which has been urged by those 
who object to the use of set forms of prayer, 
in confirmation of their opinion. Tertullian, 
18 speaking of the primitive Christians, says, 

16 Century II. Part II. Chap. IV. Sect. 8. 

17 c. 39. in Chap. IV. p. 222. 

18 c. 30. Denique sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus. 
See Bingham, Book xiii. c. 5. Sect. 5. 



412 

"that they prayed for the emperor without 
a prompter, because they prayed from the 
heart." From the words " without a prompter" 
it has been inferred that their prayers were 
on all occasions extemporaneous effusions. But 
the context clearly shews, that Tertullian 
merely intended to contrast the cordial since- 
rity of their prayers for the safety and pros- 
perity of the emperors, with the forced and 
hollow exclamations of the heathen populace; 
who required to be bribed with largesses, and 
even to be prompted, before they would cry 
out in the accustomed form, 19 "De nostris 
annis tibi Jupiter augeat annos." 

From incidental notices scattered over Ter- 
tullian's works we collect, that 20 Sunday, or 
the Lord's Day, was regarded by the primi- 
tive Christians as a day of rejoicing; and that 
to fast upon it was deemed unlawful. The 
word Sabbatum is always used to designate, 

19 Compare c. 35. 

20 Tertullian uses both names; that of Sunday, when 
addressing the heathens. Apology, c. 16. iEque si diem Solis 
laetitiae indulgemus, &c. Ad Nationes, L. i. c. 13; that of the 
Lord's Day, when writing to Christians. De Corona, c. 3. 
Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus. De Jejuniis, c. 15. 
De Idololatria, c. 14. De Anima, c. 9. Inter Dominica Solen- 
nia. De Fuga in Persecutione, c. 14. We are not, however, 
certain that Tertullian uniformly observes this distinction, 
Bingham thinks that he does. Book xx. c 2. Sect. 1. 



413 

not the first, but the seventh day of the 
week; which appears in Tertullian's time to 
have been also kept as a day of rejoicing. 
Even 21 the Montanists — anxious as they were 
to introduce a more rigorous discipline in 
the observance of fasts — when they kept their 
two weeks of Xerophagise, did not fast on the 
Saturday and Sunday. The 22 Saturday before 
Easter day was, however, an exception ; that 
was observed as a fast. 23 The custom of ob- 
serving every Saturday as a fast, which became 
general throughout the western Church, does 
not appear to have existed in Tertullian's time. 
That men who, like our author, on all occa- 
sions contended that the ritual and ceremonial 
law of Moses had ceased, should observe the 
seventh day of the week as a festival, is per- 
haps to be ascribed to a desire of conciliating 
the Jewish converts. 

We find in Tertullian's works no notice 
of the celebration of our Lord's nativity; 
although 24 the festivals of Easter and Whit- 

21 De Jejuniis, c. 15. The Gentiles feasted on a Saturday. 
Apology, c. 16. 

22 De Jejuniis, c. 14. 

23 See Bingham, Book xx. c. 3. 

24 De Corona, c. 3. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4. Quis deni- 
que solemnibus Paschae abnoctantem securus sustinebit ? Bing- 
ham supposes that our author here speaks of the Paschal Vigil 



414 

suntide are frequently mentioned : with refer- 
ence to which it should be observed, that 
the word Pascha was not used to signify 
merely the day of our Lord's Resurrection, 
but also the day of his Passion; or rather 
the whole interval of time from his cruci- 
fixion to his resurrection. In like manner 
the word 25 Pentecoste signified, not merely 
Whitsunday, but also the fifty days which 
intervened between Easter and Whitsun- 
day. Tertullian makes no allusion to the 
paschal controversy — a controversy which was 
carried on with great bitterness, towards the 
middle of the second century, respecting the 
days on which the Death and Resurrection 
of Christ ought to be commemorated. He 
26 says only in general terms that they were 
always commemorated in the first month of 
the year. 

We have 2T already had occasion to allude 
to the custom of making offerings at the 



or Easter Eve. (Book xiif. c. 9. Sect. 4. or Book xxi. c. 1. 
Sect. 32.) De Baptismo, c. 19. Ad Marcionem, L. iv. c 40. 

25 De Corona, c. 3. De Idololatria, c. 14. sub fine. De 
Baptismo, c. 19- De Jejuniis, c. 14. 

26 De Jejuniis, c 14. 

27 Chap. V. note 21 6. Compare the Scorpiace, c. 15. 
Tunc Paulus civitatis Romanae consequitur nativitatem, quura 
illic martyrii renascitur generositate. 



415 

tombs of the martyrs, on the anniversary of 
their martyrdom. To the anniversary itself 
was given the name of Natalitium or Natalis 
Dies; on the ground that it was the day of 
their birth into eternal life. Some of the com- 
mentators fancy that they discover, 28 in a pas- 
sage in the Tract de Corona, an allusion to 
the practice of noting down the days on which 
the martyrs suffered — in other words, of com- 
posing martyrologies ; but the passage is not 
of that decided character on which an infer- 
ence can be safely built. 

After Tertullian became a Montanist, he 
wrote his Tract de Jejuniis; the object of 
which was to defend the number, length, and 
severity of the fasts prescribed by the founder 
of the sect. In order to refute the notion 
that the season of our Saviour's Passion was 
the only season at which Christians were 
positively bound to fast, he undertakes to 
establish the general obligation of fasting. 
9 With this view he goes back to Adam's 
transgression. Adam was forbidden to eat of 
the fruit of the tree of knowledge; he ate 
and fell. As, therefore, he fell by yielding 
to his appetite, it follows that the sure way 

28 c. 13. Habes tuos census, tuos fastos. 

29 c. 3. 



416 

for man to regain the favour of God is to 
mortify his appetite. Adam offended by eat- 
ing; we must remedy the evil consequences 
of the offence by fasting. Our author 30 re- 
fers also to various instances both in the Old 
and New Testaments, in which punishment 
had been averted, and spiritual and temporal 
blessings obtained, by fasting. 31 God, more- 
over, by testifying his favourable acceptance 
of fasts observed in consequence of voluntary 
vows, thereby declared his will, and rendered 
such fasts obligatory in future. This favour- 
able acceptance supplied the place of a posi- 
tive command. Tertullian, however, 32 is met 
in the very outset by a perplexing objection. 
"If fasting was designed to be the means of 
recovering God's favour, how came it to pass 
that, after the deluge, the liberty respecting 
food was not curtailed, but extended? That 
man, who was originally confined to a vege- 
table diet, was then allowed to eat flesh ?" 
To this question Tertullian returns an an- 
swer, for which few of his readers could, 
we think, have been prepared. — At first 33 the 
liberty respecting food was enlarged, in order 

30 cc. 7, 8. Compare de PatientiA, c. 13. 

31 c. 11. 32 c. 4. 

33 Compare de Cultu Foeminarum, L. ii. c. 10. De Exhor- 
tatione Castitatis, c. 8. 



417 

that man might have an opportunity of evinc- 
ing a greater desire to please God, by a volun- 
tary abstinence from those kinds of food 
which he was permitted to take. M After- 
wards when the law was given, a distinction 
was made between clean and unclean animals; 
for the purpose of preparing mankind for the 
fasts which in due season they would be re- 
quired to observe under the Gospel. — One 
argument 35 urged by Tertullian in favour of 
fasting is, that it fitted the Christian to en- 
counter the bodily hardships to which the 
profession of his faith exposed him. ^Ano- 
ther is grounded on the natural tendency of 
fasting to render the intellectual and moral 
faculties vigorous and active; whereas a full 
stomach weighs down the soul, rendering it 
unfit for contemplation, and devotional exer- 
cises, and intercourse with heaven. This re- 
mark our author confirms by the 37 examples 
of Moses and Elias ; who fasted forty days and 
forty nights, when they were admitted to the 
Divine Presence. 

From this treatise and from other parts of 
Tertullian's writings we learn, that the fasts 

34 c. 5. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. ii. c. 18. 

35 c. 12. 36 c# 6# 
37 Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 6l. 

Dd 



418 

observed by the Church in his day were 
I. 38 The Paschal Fast, which consisted in a 
total abstinence from food (Jejunium) during 
the interval between Christ's passion and re- 
surrection. This was considered as obligatory 
upon all Christians. II. Stationary Days, 
39 Dies Stationarii, Wednesday and Friday in 
every week; on which a half-fast (semi-jeju- 
nium) was kept, terminating at three in the 
afternoon. These were 40 voluntary fasts, and 
observed on the authority of Tradition; Wed- 
nesday being selected, because on that day 
the Jews took counsel to destroy Christ; and 
Friday, because that was the day of his 

38 Certe in Evangelio illos dies jejuniis determinatos 
putant, in quibus ablatus est sponsus (Matt. ix. 15.) et hos 
esse jam solos legitimos jejuniorum Christian orum, abolitis 
legalibus et propheticis vetustatibus. De Jejuniis, c. 2. 
Compare c. 13. sub in. c. 14. De Oratione, c. 14. 

39 Cur Stationibus quartam et sextam Sabbati dicamus? 
De Jejuniis, c. 14. Sic et Apostolos observasse, nullum 
aliud imponentes jugum certorura et in commune omnibus 
obeundorum jejuniorum ; proinde nee stationum, quae et ipsae 
suos quidem dies habeant, quartae feriae et sextae; passive 
tamen currant, neque sub lege praecepti; neque ultra supre- 
mam diei, quando et orationes fere hora nona concludat, de 
Petri exemplo, quod Actis refertur, c. 2. See also de Ora- 
tione, c. 14. where our author supposes the word static to be 
borrowed from the Military art. Si statio de militari exemplo 
nomen accipit ; nam et militia Dei sumus. Tertullian uses the 
expression trium hebdomadum statione in speaking of Daniel's 
fast (c. 10.) De Anima, c. 48. 

40 See de Jejuniis, c. IS. sub in. Bingham, Book xxi. 
c. 3. Sect. 2. from Augustine, Ep. 86. or S6. ad Casulanum. 



419. 

crucifixion. 41 The reason assigned for termi- 
nating the Statio at the ninth hour was, that 
Peter is said in the 42 Acts of the Apostles to 
have gone with John into the temple, at that 
hour. "But whence," asks Tertullian, who 
contended that the Statio ought to be pro- 
longed till the evening, "whence does it ap- 
pear that the Apostles had on that day been 
keeping a fast? The example of St. Peter 
might be more plausibly alleged for terminat- 
ing the fast at the sixth hour; for 43 in an- 
other Chapter we are told that he went up 
to pray at that hour, and became very hungry, 
and would have eaten." III. Xerophagias, 
days on which it was usual to abstain from 
flesh and wine; in imitation perhaps of the 
restraint which 44 Daniel is stated to have im- 
posed upon himself. These 45 fasts were not 
enjoined by the Church, but were voluntary 
exercises of piety on the part of individuals; 
and 46 some of the orthodox appear to have 
objected to them altogether, on the ground 

41 De Jejuniis, c. 10. 42 c. 3. v. 1. 

43 c. 10. v. 9. 44 c. 10. v. 3. 

45 De Jejuniis, c. 13. 

46 Xerophagias vero novum affectari officii nomen et prox- 
imum Ethnicae superstitioni, quales castimoniae Apim, Isidem, 
et Magnam Matrem certorum eduliorum exceptione purificant. 
De Jejuniis, c. 2. See also c. 16. 

DD 2 



420 

that they were borrowed - from the heathen 
superstitions. 

The difference between the orthodox and 
Montanists, on the subject of fasting, appears 
to have consisted in the following particulars. 
With respect to the Jejunium, or total ab- 
stinence from food, the former thought that 
the interval between our Saviour's death and 
resurrection was the only period during which 
the Apostles observed a total fast; and con- 
sequently the only period during which fasting 
was of positive obligation upon all Christians. 
At other times it rested with themselves to de- 
termine whether they would fast or not. The 
47 Montanists on the contrary contended that 
there were other seasons, during which fasting 
was obligatory; and that the appointment of 
those seasons constituted a part of the revelations 
of the Paraclete. With respect to the Dies 
Stationarii, the Montanists not only pronounced 
the fast obligatory upon all Christians, but 
48 prolonged it until the evening; instead of 
terminating it, as was the orthodox custom, 
at the ninth hour. In the observance of the 



47 De Jejuniis, cc. 1, 13. 

48 De Jejuniis, c. 1. Quod Stationes plerumque in ves- 
peram producamus. 



421 

Xerophagise the 49 Montanists abstained— not 
only from flesh and wine, like the orthodox — 
but also from the richer and more juicy 
kinds of fruit, and omitted all their cus- 
tomary ablutions. Montanus appears to have 
enjoined only 50 two weeks of Xerophagise in 
the year: but his followers were animated by 
a greater love of fasting than their Master; 
for 51 Jerome says, that, in his day, the Mon- 
tanists kept three Lents ; one of them after 
Whitsunday. 

We 52 have already observed that, in Ter^ 
tullian's time, the bishops exercised the power 

49 De Jejuniis, c. 1. Quod etiam Xerophagias observemus, 
siccantes cibum ab omni carne, et omni jurulentia, et vividio- 
ribus quibusque pomis, ne quid vinositatis vel edamus vel 
potemus. Lavacri quoque abstinentiam, congruentem arido 
victui. See also cc. 9, 10. where Tertullian defends the prac- 
tice of the Montanists, as strictly conformable to the prac- 
tice of holy men under the Mosaic and Christian dispensations. 
The Marcionites appear to have deemed fish a holy diet. 
Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 14. 

50 Duas in anno hebdomadas Xerophagiarum, nee totas, 
exceptis scilicet Sabbatis et Dominicis, offerimus Deo. De 
Jejuniis, c 15. 

51 Illi tres in anno faciunt quadragesimas, quasi tres passi 
sint Salvatores. Ad Marcellam, Ep. 54. Et ex hujus occa- 
sione testimonii Montanus, Prisca, et Maximilla, etiam post 
Pentecosten faciunt quadragesimam, quod, ablato sponso, 
filii sponsi debeant jejunare. In Matt. ix. Bingham infers 
that each of these Lent Fasts continued for two weeks. 
Book xxi. c. 1. Sect. 15. 

52 Chap. IV. p. 236. De Jejuniis, c. 13. 



422 

of appointing days of fasting, whenever the 
circumstances of the Church seemed to re- 
quire such outward marks of sorrow and 
humiliation ; and 53 that the councils or gene- 
ral assemblies, which were held in Greece for 
the purpose of regulating the affairs of the 
Church, were opened by a solemn fast. 

Ecclesiastical history abounds with proofs 
of the tendency of mankind to run into ex- 
tremes ; and thus to convert institutions, which 
in their original design and application were 
beneficial and salutary, into sources of the 
most pernicious errors and abuses. Were we 
required to produce an instance in confirmation 
of the truth of this remark, we should with- 
out hesitation refer the reader to the subject 
which we have been now considering. Fast- 
ing, as it was originally practised in the 
Church, was regarded as a means to a moral 
end: as a means, peculiarly fitted both to the 
circumstances and to the nature of man, of 
nourishing in him those feelings of contri- 
tion and self-abasement, and of enabling him 
to acquire that mastery over his sensual ap- 
petites, which are essential elements in the 
composition of the Christian character. When, 
at the season appointed by the Church for the 

53 Chap. IV. p. 245, De Jejuniis, c. 13. 






423 

commemoration of the Passion of Christ, its 
members, amongst other external observances — 
designed to express their lively sense of their 
own unworthiness, and of the deadly nature 
of sin which could be expiated only by so 
great a sacrifice — abstained also from their cus- 
tomary meals and recreations; surely the most 
enlightened reason must approve the motive 
of their abstinence ; and admit as well its suit- 
ableness to the fallen condition of man, as 
its tendency to encourage a devout and hum- 
ble temper. To these considerations we may 
add that, from the mixed constitution of 
man's nature and the intimate union which 
subsists between his soul and body, the occa- 
sional restraints, which the primitive Christ- 
ians voluntarily imposed upon themselves in 
respect of food and amusement, could scarcely 
fail to have a beneficial operation upon their 
character; were it only by interrupting for a 
time their ordinary habits, and reminding them 
that the objects of sense possessed neither the 
sole, nor the principal, claim to their atten- 
tion. A life of habitual indulgence, even 
when that indulgence leads not to positive 
excess, is favourable neither to intellectual nor 
spiritual improvement. It enfeebles our men- 
tal powers : it deadens our moral perceptions : 
it tends especially to render us selfish and 



424 

regardless of the wants and feelings of others. 
But when experience also tells us that such 
a course of life terminates almost invariably 
in excess, no further argument can be want- 
ing to prove the reasonableness and utility of 
occasional abstinence— if used only as a means 
to an end — to invigorate the moral principle 
within us, and to promote humility of temper 
and purity of heart. Unhappily, however, for 
the Church, from the propensity of the human 
mind to run into extremes— from an increas- 
ing fondness for the tenets of the Platonic 
philosophy — and an indiscriminate imitation of 
what is recorded in Scripture of holy men, 
who, being placed in extraordinary circum- 
stances, were never designed to be held up 
as examples, in all points of their conduct, 
to ordinary Christians — from the combined 
operation of all these causes; fasting, instead 
of being considered as a salutary discipline, 
or as a means to holiness, came to be re- 
garded as holiness itself. The piety of men 
was estimated by the frequency and severity 
of their fasts. In proportion as they subjected 
themselves to greater privations and hardships, 
they acquired a higher reputation for sanctity. 
A species of rivalry was thus excited; new 
and strange methods were invented of mace- 
rating and torturing their bodies ;., till at length 



425 

extravagance in practice led to error in doc- 
trine; fasts and mortifications were regarded 
as meritorious in themselves — as procuring by 
their intrinsic efficacy remission of sin and 
restoration to the favour of God. 

To the same causes, which led men into 
the errors now described respecting the merit 
of fasting, may be traced the erroneous opi- 
nions which were gradually introduced, re- 
specting the superior sanctity of the monastic 
and eremetical modes of life. No man, who 
has reflected upon the constitution of his own 
nature and believes that he is destined to 
exist in a purer and more spiritual state, can 
doubt the utility, or rather necessity, of oc- 
casional retirement and seclusion ; for the 
purposes of self-examination, and of securing 
to religion that paramount influence over the 
thoughts and affections, which is liable to be 
weakened, or even destroyed, by a constant 
intercourse with the world. Here then was 
a reasonable motive to induce Christians, 
wisely anxious for their own salvation, to 
withdraw themselves, at stated intervals, from 
worldly pleasures, and cares, and occupations. 
The frequency with which those intervals 
recurred would depend in each case upon 
the temper of the individual. Men of an 



426 

austere and unsocial, as well as those of an 
enthusiastic character, would naturally run into 
excess ; and contend that, if occasional seclu- 
sion was thus favourable to the growth of 
religion in the soul, the benefits to be derived 
from total seclusion must be proportionably 
greater :— in a word, that the most effectual 
mode of securing their virtue against the 
temptations of the world was to quit it alto- 
gether. The deference paid in the Church to 
the authority of Plato contributed to give cur- 
rency and weight to these opinions. One prin- 
ciple of his philosophy was, that the visible 
things around us are only the fleeting and fal- 
lacious images of those eternal, immutable 
ideas, which alone possess a real existence. 
The business, therefore, of him, who wishes to 
arrive at the knowledge of the truth, and to 
elevate his nature to the perfection of which 
it is capable, must be to abstract his mind 
from his senses — entirely to exclude from his 
observation those forms of perishable matter 
which serve only to bewilder and lead him 
astray — and to give himself up to the contem- 
plation of the ideal world. These speculative 
notions, originally derived from the Platonic 
school, no sooner gained a footing in the 
Church, than they were reduced to practice. 
Men began to affect a life of solitude and 



427 

contemplation, and to deem all intercourse 
with the world a positive hindrance to the 
attainment of that spiritual elevation at which 
the Christian ought to aim. Overlooking the 
clear intimations supplied by the constitution 
of their own nature, that man is designed for 
society — overlooking the express declarations 
of Scripture and the example of our Blessed 
Lord, whose ministry was one continued course 
of active benevolence — they took Elias and the 
Baptist for their models ; without reflecting for 
a moment either upon the peculiar circum- 
stances in which those holy men were placed, 
or the peculiar objects which they were ap- 
pointed to accomplish. Thus while they passed 
their hours in a state of indolent abstraction — 
discharging no one social duty, and living as 
if they were alone in the world — they succeed- 
ed in persuading themselves and others that 
they were treading the path which leads to 
Christian perfection, and pursuing the course 
most pleasing in the sight of God — that they 
were the especial objects of his regard, were 
holding habitual intercourse with him, and 
enjoying a foretaste of that ineffable bliss 
which would be their portion, when removed 
from this world of sin and misery to his im- 
mediate presence. Hence the stories of dreams 
and visions, which occur so frequently in the 



428 

lives of the saints, and have been too hastily- 
stigmatised as the offspring of deliberate fraud : 
whereas they were in most instances the cre- 
ations of a distempered mind, cut off from the 
active pursuits in which it was designed to be 
engaged, and supplying their place by ima- 
ginary scenes and objects. It forms no part 
of our plan to enter into a minute detail of 
the follies and extravagancies which were the 
natural fruits of the eremitical and monastic 
modes of life. Let it suffice to have pointed 
out the sources from which they took their 
rise; and to have exposed the mischievous 
consequences of setting up any one mode of 
life as pre-eminently pure and holy — as ren- 
dering those who adopt it the peculiar favourites 
of heaven. 

To return to our author. In refuting 
the calumnious accusations of the Pagans, he 
speaks of the Agape, or feast of charity. "Its 
54 object," he says, "is evident from its name, 
which signifies love. In these feasts, therefore, 
we testify our love towards our poorer brethren, 
by relieving their wants. We commence the 
entertainment by offering up a prayer to God ; 
and after eating and drinking in moderation, 
we wash our hands, and lights being intro- 
54 Apology, c. 39- 



429 

duced, each individual is invited to address 
God in a Psalm, either taken from the Scrip- 
tures or the produce of his own meditations, 
The feast concludes, as it began, with prayer." 
Tertullian does not expressly say, but it may 
be fairly inferred, that the materials of the 
feast were furnished out of the oblations made 
at the Eucharist; a portion of which appears 
also to have been allotted to the support of 
the 55 martyrs in prison. When we read the 
above description of the Agape, we cannot 
but participate in the regret expressed by 
56 Dr. Hey, that scandal should have occasioned 
the discontinuance of an entertainment, so en- 
tirely consonant to the benevolent spirit of 
the Gospel. If, however, we may believe Ter- 
tullian, the grossest abuses were introduced 
into it even in his time: for we find him, 57 in 
the Tract de Jejuniis, charging the orthodox 
with the very same licentious practices in their 
feasts of charity, which the Pagans were in 
the habit of imputing — and according to the 
statement in the Apology, falsely imputing — to 
the whole Christian body. On these contra- 

55 Imo et quae justa sunt caro non amittit per curam 
Ecclesia?, agapen fratrum. Ad Martyres, c. 2. 

56 Book IV. Art. 28. Sect. 5. 

57 c. 17- Sed major his est agape, quia per hanc adoles- 
centes tui cum sororibus dormiunt : appendices scilicet gulae 
lascivia atque luxuria. Compare the Apology,, cc. 7, 8. 



430 

dictoiy assertions of our author, we may remark 
that the truth probably lies between them. 
Abuses did exist, but neither so numerous, 
nor so flagrant, as the enemies of the Gospel, 
and Tertullian himself, after he became a Mon- 
tanist, alleged. 



Tertuilian speaks 58 both of public and pri- 
vate vigils; and says that it was customary 
for the Christian females to bring water to 
wash the feet of the brethren, and to visit the 
dwellings of the poor, for the purpose, it may 
be presumed, of giving them instruction and 
relieving their wants. The Romish comment- 
ators have endeavoured to defend the religious 
processions of their Church by the authority of 
Tertullian; who uses the word 59 Procedendum 
in the passage from which the preceding re- 
marks are taken. But if we compare it with 
another passage in the 60 second Tract de Cultu 

58 Ita saturantur, ut qui meminerint etiam per noctem 
adorandum sibi Deum esse. Apology, c. 3Q. Quis nocturnis 
convocationibus., si ita oportuerit, a latere suo adimi libenter 
feret ? Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4. Quum etiam per noctem 
exsurgis oratum, c. 5. Aquam sanctorum pedibus offerre, 
c. 4. Quis autem sinat conjugem suam, visitandorum fratrum 
gratia, vicatim aliena et quidem pauperiora quaeque tuguria 
circumire ? Ibid. 

59 Si procedendum erit, &c. 

60 c. 11. Ac si necessitas amicitiarum officiorumque gen- 
tilium vos vocat, cur non vestris armis indutse proceditis? 
See also c. 12. 



431 

Fceminarum, we shall find that the word pro- 
cedere means "to go from home;" which, 
61 Tertullian observes, a Christian female ought 
never to do, excepting for some religious or 
charitable purpose. 

We will now proceed to the rite of Bap- 
tism; on which Tertullian wrote an express 
Treatise, in confutation of a female, named 
Quintilla, who denied its necessity, affirming 
that faith alone was sufficient to salvation. 
In that Treatise, as well as in other parts of 
his works, he speaks in strong terms of the 
efficacy of Baptism. "By 62 it," he says, "we 
are cleansed from all our sins, and rendered 
capable of attaining eternal life. By 63 it we 
regain that Spirit of God, which Adam re- 
ceived at his creation, and lost by his trans- 
gression." Tertullian 64 connects regeneration 

61 Vobis autem nulla procedendi causa non tetrica; aut 
imbecillus aliquis ex fratribus visitatur, aut sacrificium offertur, 
aut Dei verbum administrator, c. 11. 

62 See de Pcenitentia, c. 6. De Baptismo, cc. 1. 7. 

63 De Baptismo, c. 5. sub fine. Recipit enim ilium Dei 
Spiritum, quern tunc de afflatu ejus acceperat, sed post 
amiserat per delictum. Tertullian usually speaks as if the 
soul, that is, the vital and intellectual principles, had been 
communicated when God breathed into the nostrils of Adam 
the breath of life. Here he appears to confound the soul 
and spirit. See Chap. III. p. 191. Chap. V. note 169. Aqua 
signat, Sancto Spiritu vestit. De Praescriptione Haereticorum, 
c. 36. 

64 De Anima, c. 41. See Chap. V. p. 327- De Res. Carnis, 

c. 47. 



432 

with it; calling it our second birth, in which 
the soul is formed as it were anew by water 
and the power from above — and the veil of 
its former corruption being drawn aside, be« 
holds the full refulgence of its native light* 
In the 65 first book against Marcion, he declares 
the following spiritual blessings to be consequent 
upon Baptism : — remission of sins — deliverance 
from death — regeneration — and participation in 
the Holy Spirit. He calls it the 66 sacrament 
of washing — the 67 blessed sacrament of water — 
68 the laver of regeneration — the 69 sacrament of 
faith, the 70 sign or seal of our faith. 71 There is 
an apparent inconsistency in his accounts of the 
mode in which the spiritual benefits of Bap- 

c. 47- De Pudicitia, cc. 6. 9. We find in the Tract de Carne 
Christi, c. 4. the expression Ccelestis TLegeneratio, and in the 
Scorpiace, c. 6. " Secunda Regeneratio ;" but in both cases the 
allusion seems to be to the change in the body of man,, 
which will take place when it puts on incorruption and 
immortality. 

65 c. 28. 

66 Eadem lavacri Sacramenta. De Virginibus velandis, 
c. 2. See Chap. V. p. 357- 

67 Felix Sacramentum aquae nostra?. De Baptismo, sub 
initio. 

68 Per lavacrum regenerationis. De Pudicitia, c. 1. 

69 Sine Fidei Sacramento. De Anima, c 1. 

70 In signaculo Fidei. De Spectaculis, c. 24. Signaculi 
nostri, c. 4. Speaking of circumcision, Tertullian uses the 
expression Signaculum corporis. Apology, c. 21. 

71 In the Tract de Pudicitia, c. 10. Tertullian calls the 
Baptism of John, the washing of repentance. 



433 

tism are conferred. At one time, he 72 speaks 
as if the sanctiflcation of the water used in 
Baptism was effected by the immediate agency 
of the Holy Spirit, who descended upon it 
as soon as the prayer of invocation had been 
addressed to God. At another time, he ^sup- 
poses the effect to be produced through the 
ministry of an angel, whom he terms Angelus 
Baptismi Arbiter. To this angel, who, accord- 
ing to him, is the precursor of the Holy Spirit, 
as the Baptist was of Christ, belongs the espe- 
cial office of preparing the soul of man for 
the reception of the Holy Spirit in Baptism. 
We call the inconsistency of these two state- 
ments only an apparent inconsistency; because, 
occurring as they do not only in the same 
Tract, but even in the same chapter, our au- 
thor could scarcely have deemed them incon- 

72 Igitur omnes aquae de pristina. originis praerogativa. 
Sacramentum sanctificationis consequuntiir, invocato Deo. 
Supervenit enira statim Spiritus de ccelis, et aquis superest, 
sanctificans eas de semetipso, et ita sanctificatae vim sancti- 
ficandi combibunt. De Baptismo, c. 4. quoted in Chap. V. 
note 235. See also c. 8. 

73 Igitur medicatis quodammodo aquis per Angeli inter- 
ventum, et Spiritus in aquis corporaliter diluitur, et caro 
in iisdem spiritaliter mundatur, c. 4. Again in c. 6. Non 
quod in aquis Spiritum Sanctum consequimur, sed in aqua 
emundati sub Angelo Spiritui Sancto praeparamur. Hie 
quoque figura praecessit. Sic enim Ioannes ante praecursor 
Domini fuit, praeparans vias ejus; ita et Angelus Baptismi 
arbiter superventuro Spiritui Sancto vias dirigit ablutione 
delictorum. See Chap. III. p. 21 9- 

Ee 



434 

sistent. The latter statement is evidently 
founded 74 on the narrative in St. John's Gos- 
pel, respecting the angel who imparted a heal- 
ing efficacy to the waters of the pool of 
Bethesda. 

In the 75 Tract de Corona Militis, Tertullian 
gives a summary account of the forms used 
in administering the rite of Baptism. The can- 
didate, having been prepared for its due re- 
ception 76 by frequent prayers, fasts, and vigils, 
professed, ""in the presence of the congrega- 
tion and under 78 the hand of the president, 

79 that he renounced the devil, his pomp, and 
angels. He was then plunged into the water 

80 three times, in allusion to the Three Persons 
of the Holy Trinity ; 81 making certain responses 
which, like the other forms here mentioned, 

74 c. 5. 75 c. 3. 

76 De Baptismo, c. 20. 

77 The expression is in Ecclesid, which Bingham trans- 
lates in the Church. The translation may be correct; for 
in the same Tract, c. 13. the word Ecclesia seems to mean 
the place of assembly. Et ipsum curiae nomen Ecclesia est 
Christi. 

78 Sub Antistitis manu. 

79 Compare de Spectaculis, c. 4. De Idololatria, c. 6. 
De Cultu Fceminarum, L. i. c. 2. 

80 Nam nee semel, sed ter, ad singula nomina in per- 
sonas singulas tingimur. Adv. Praxeam, c. 26. 

81 In aquam demissus, et inter pauca verba tinctus. De 
Baptismo, c. 2. 



435 

were not prescribed in Scripture, but rested 
on custom and tradition. He then tasted a 
mixture of milk and 82 honey — was 83 anointed 
with oil, in allusion to the practice, under the 
Mosaic dispensation, of anointing those who 
were appointed to the priesthood, since all 
Christians are in a certain sense supposed to 
be priests — and 84 was signed with the sign of 
the cross. Lastly 85 followed the imposition of 
hands; the origin of which ceremony is re- 
ferred by our author to the benediction pro- 
nounced by Jacob upon the sons of Joseph. 
With us the imposition of hands is deferred 
till the child is brought to be confirmed; but 
in Tertullian's time, when a large proportion 
of the persons baptised were adults, Confir- 
mation immediately followed the administra- 
tion of Baptism, and formed a part of the cere- 
mony. It was usual 86 for the baptised person 
to abstain, during the week subsequent to his 
reception of the rite, from his daily ablutions. 
Some 87 also contended that Baptism ought to 

82 Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 14. 

83 De Baptismo, c. 7. De Res. Carnis, c. 26. 

84 De Res. Carnis, c. 8. 

85 De Baptismo, c. 8. De Res. Carnis, c. 8. 

86 De Corona, c. 3. 

87 De Baptismo, c. 20. But compare de Jejuniis, c. 8. 
Ipse mox Dominus baptisma suura, et in suo omnium jejuniis 
dedicavit. This variation of opinion affords an additional 
presumption that the Tract de Baptismo was written before 
Tertullian became a Montanist. 

E E 2 



436 

be followed by fasting; because our Lord im- 
mediately after his Baptism fasted forty days 
and forty nights. But our author replies that 
Baptism is in fact an occasion of joy, inas- 
much as it opens to us the door of salvation. 
Christ's conduct in this instance was not de- 
signed to be an example for our imitation, as 
it had a particular reference to certain events 
which took place under the Mosaic dispen- 
sation. In commenting upon the parable of 
the prodigal son, 88 Tertullian calls the ring 
which the Father directed to be put upon his 
hand, the seal of Baptism ; by which the 
Christian, when interrogated, seals the cove- 
nant of his faith. The natural inference from 
these words appears to be that a ring used to 
be given in Baptism : but I have found no 
other trace of such a custom. 

Tertullian 89 alludes to the custom of having 
sponsors ; who made, in the name of the child- 
ren brought to the font, those promises which 
they were unable to make for themselves. 

From the passages already referred to, and 

88 Annulum denuo signaculum lavacri. De Pudicitia, c 9. 
Annulum quoque accepit tunc primum, quo fidei pactionem 
interrogatus obsignat. Ibid. 

89 Quid enim necesse est sponsores etiam periculo ingeri ? 
De Baptismo, c 18. See also, c. 6. 



437 



90 



from others scattered through Tertullian's ' 
works, it is evident that in his day Baptism 
was administered in the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost ; and that 91 the candidate 
professed his belief in the Three Persons of the 
Trinity, who were at once the witnesses of 
his profession and the sponsors for his salva- 
tion. We will take this opportunity of ob- 
serving that, whatever might be the case with 
the Montanists in after times, the writings of 
Tertullian afford no ground for supposing that 
the founder of the sect introduced a new form 
of Baptism. 

After enforcing the necessity of Baptism 
by water, and describing and explaining the 
forms observed in the administration of the 
rite, Tertullian proceeds, in the remaining chap- 
ters of the Tract de Baptismo, to discuss some 
other points connected with the subject. He 
92 first considers the question proposed by Christ 
to the Pharisees — "The Baptism of John, was 
it from heaven or of men?" To this Ter- 
tullian replies, that it was of divine command- 
ment, because John was sent by God to 
baptise. So far it was from heaven. But 



90 De Baptismo, c 13. 

91 De Baptismo, c. 6. 

92 c. 10. Matth. xxi. 25. 



438 

it conveyed no heavenly gift : it conferred 
neither the remission of sins nor the Holy 
Spirit. 95 John's was the Baptism of repentance ; 
designed to fit men for the reception of that 
Baptism, by which, through the efficacy of the 
death and resurrection of Christ, they obtain 
the remission of sins and the sanctifying in- 
fluences of the Spirit. 94 Until the descent of 
the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, the 
disciples of Christ baptised only with the Bap- 
tism of John ; that is, unto repentance. 95 Ter- 
tullian's interpretation of the words — " He shall 
baptise you with the Holy Ghost and with 
fire" — is, that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost 
applies to those whose faith is sincere and 
stedfast : — the Baptism with fire to those whose 
faith is feigned and unstable ; and who are 
therefore baptised, not to salvation, but to 
judgement. Our 96 author supposes the Bap- 
tist's message to Christ to have originated in 
the failure of his faith, occasioned by the 

93 On the object of John's mission, see adv. Marcionem, 
L. iv. c. 33. L. v. c. 2. 

94 c. 11. 

95 c. 10. sub fine. Some in Tertullian's day appear to 
have contended that there was a contradiction between the 
Baptist's prediction that Christ would baptise, and St. John's 
declaration (iv. 2.) that he did not baptise, c. 11. 

96 c. 10. Matth. xi. Compare de Oratione, c 1. Adv. 
Marcionem, L. iv. c. 18. John iii. 30. 



439 

transfer of the Spirit from him to Christ: — 
a notion founded on John's declaration — "He 
must increase, and I must decrease." 

In 97 the passage just alluded to, Tertullian 
does not merely assert that the disciples of 
Christ baptised with the Baptism of John, but 
assigns his reasons for making the assertion. 
His words are — Itaque tingebant Discipuli 
ejus (Christi) ut ministri, ut Ioannes ante pre- 
cursor, eodem baptismo Ioannis, ne qui alio 
putet, quia nee extat alius nisi postea Christi, 
qui tunc utique a discentibus dari non poterat, 
utpote nondum adimpleta gloria Domini, nee 
instructs efneacia lavacri per passionem et re- 
surrectionem. From these words we may fairly 
infer, that Tertullian knew no Baptisms con- 
nected with the divine dispensations, besides 
those of John and Christ. Yet Wall, in the 
Introduction to his History of Infant Baptism, 
has quoted a passage from this very Tract, to 
prove that our author was acquainted with the 
Jewish Baptism of proselytes. The passage is 
in the fifth chapter — Sed enim nationes, extra- 
nese ab omni intellectu Spiritalium, Potestatem 
eadem efneacia suis idolis subministrant, sed 
viduis aquis sibi mentiuntur. Nam et sacris 
quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur, Isidis ali- 
97 c. 11. 



440 

cujus, aut Mithree — certe ludis Apollinaribus et 
Eleusiniis tinguntur. Idque se in regenera- 
tionem et impunitatem perjuriorum suorum 
agere prassumunt — quo agnito, hie quoque stu- 
dium Diaboli cognoscimus res Dei semulantis, 
quum et ipse baptismum in suis exercet. On 
this passage, Wall makes the following remark. 
" Now the divine baptism, which he says the 
devil imitated, must be the Jewish baptism. 
For the rites of Apollo and Ceres, in which 
he there instances as those in which the said 
baptism was used, were long before the times 
of the Christian baptism." This, however, is 
by no means a necessary inference. 98 In de- 
scribing the notions entertained by Tertullian 
respecting the nature of daemons, we men- 
tioned that their chief employment and pleasure 
was to prevent mankind from embracing the 
worship of the true God ; and that they were 
assisted in the attainment of this object by 
the partial knowledge w T hich they had acquired, 
during their abode in heaven, of the nature 
of the divine dispensations. Availing them- 
selves of this knowledge, they endeavoured to 
pre-occupy the minds of men by inventing 
rites, bearing some resemblance to those which 
were to be observed under the gospel. Thus, 
by their suggestion, Baptism was introduced 

98 Chap. III. p. 218. 



441 

into the Eleusinian mysteries, as a mode of. 
initiation; being, if I may use the expression, 
an imitation by anticipation of Christian Bap- 
tism. 

That this is a correct exposition of our 
author's meaning, will be evident from a com- 
parison of the different passages in which he 
alludes to the subject. The reader will find 
some of them quoted at length in " Chapter III. ; 
and reference made to a passage in the Tract 
100 de Prsescriptione Hsereticorum, which is as 
follows — Tingit et ipse (Diabolus) quosdam, 
utique credentes et fideles suos: expositionem 
delictorum de lavacro repromittit : et si adhuc 
memini, Mithra signat illic in frontibus milites 
suos ; celebrat et panis oblationem, et imaginem 
resurrectionis inducit, et sub gladio redimit coro- 
nam. Here we find that not merely Baptism, 
but also the custom of marking the forehead 
with the sign of the cross, and the consecration 
of the bread in the Eucharist, were imitated 
in the mysteries of Mithra. Are we, there- 
fore, to conclude that the latter were also 
Jewish customs ? I am aware that there are 

99 Note 90. 

100 c. 40. See also the instances mentioned in the Tract 
de Spectaculis, c. 23, one of which is referred to in Chap. V. 
p. 385. 



442 

writers who answer this question in the affirm- 
ative; and among them Bishop Hooper in his 
Discourse on Lent, Part II. c. 3. Sect. 1. c. 6. 
Sect. 5. But I must confess that the learned 
Prelate's arguments appear to me only to 
prove that, when an author has once taken 
up an hypothesis, he will never be at a loss 
for reasons wherewith to defend it. Wall's 
conclusion is founded entirely on the assump- 
tion that the imitation of divine rites, which 
Tertullian ascribed to the devil, was neces- 
sarily an imitation of rites actually instituted; 
whereas he held that its very purpose was 
to anticipate their institution. This is not 
the proper place for enquiring whether Bap- 
tism was practised by the Jews before our 
Saviour's advent as an initiatory rite, or only 
as a mode of purification. Be this as it may, 
Tertullian's express declaration, that besides the 
Baptisms of Christ and John there was no 
other Baptism, renders him but an indifferent 
voucher for its use among the Jews, as an 
initiatory rite. 

To proceed with the Tract de Baptismo. 
The 101 next question discussed by our author 
is, whether the Apostles were baptised: and 
if not, whether they could be saved; since 

101 c 12. See Chap. I, note 174. 



443 

our Saviour declared to Nicodemus that, " unless 
a man is born of water and the Spirit, he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God" — 
a passage which the ancients uniformly inter- 
preted of Baptism. Tertullian admits that 
St. Paul is the only Apostle of whom it is 
expressly recorded, that he was baptised in the 
Lord — that is, with Christian Baptism. He 
shews it, however, to be highly probable that 
the Apostles had received John's Baptism ; 
which, as the Baptism of Christ was not then 
instituted, would be sufficient : our Lord him- 
self having said to Peter, 102 "He that is once 
washed, needs not to be washed again." — " But 
if," Tertullian continues, " we should admit 
that the Apostles were never baptised, theirs 
was an extraordinary case, and formed an ex- 
ception to the general rule respecting the 
necessity of Baptism." It is amusing to ob- 
serve how greatly the ancients were perplexed 
with this difficulty ; and to what expedients 
they had recourse in order to get rid of it. 
They argued, for instance, that Peter was bap- 
tised, when he attempted to walk upon the 
sea; and the other Apostles, when the waves 
broke over the vessel in the storm on the lake 
of Gennesareth. 

102 John xiii. 10. The verse is quoted inaccurately. 



444 



They 103 who denied the necessity of Bap- 
tism, alleged the example of Abraham, who 
pleased God by faith alone without Baptism. 
" True," replies Tertullian ; " but, as since the 
promulgation of the Gospel additional objects 
of faith, the birth, death, and resurrection of 
Christ, have been proposed to mankind, so also 
a new condition of salvation has been intro- 
duced, and faith will not now avail without 
Baptism." He confirms his argument by a 
reference to our Saviour's injunction to the 
Apostles, " Go and teach all nations, baptising 
them in the name of the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost;" and to his favourite passage, the 
declaration to Nicodemus. 

Another 104 argument against the necessity 
of Baptism was founded on the statement of 
St. Paul in 105 the first Epistle to the Corinth- 
ians, that " he was sent to preach, not to bap- 
tise." Our author justly remarks, that these 
words must be understood with reference to 
the disputes then prevailing at Corinth; not 
as meant positively to declare that it was no 
part of an Apostle's office to baptise. St. Paul 
had himself baptised Gaius, and Crispus, and 
the houshold of Stephanas. 

^ c. IS. 104 c. 14. m c. 1. v. 17- 



445 

With respect to the propriety of rebap- 
tising, Tertullian 106 says explicitly that Baptism 
ought not to be repeated; but he considered 
Heretical Baptism as utterly null. " As Here- 
tics," he argues, "have neither the same God 
nor the same Christ with us, so neither have 
they the same Baptism, Since, therefore, they 
never were baptised, they must be cleansed 
by Baptism, before they are admitted into the 
Church." We should, 107 as has been already 
observed, bear in mind that the Heretics, with 
whom Tertullian had principally to contend, 
were those who affirmed that the Creator of 
the world was not the Supreme God. 

We 108 have already seen that Tertullian 
calls martyrdom a second baptism. He says 
that martyrdom will both 109 supply the want 

106 c. 15. Haeretici autem nullum habent consortium 
nostrae disciplinae, quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa 
ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis agnoscere 
quod mihi est praeceptum, quia nee idem Deus est nobis 
et illis, nee unus Christus, id est idem. See also de Pudi- 
citia, c. 19. Unde et apud nos, ut Ethnico par, immo et 
super Ethnicum, Haereticus etiam per baptisma veritatis 
utroque homine purgatus admittitur. But when the Tract 
de Pudicitia was written, Tertullian had seceded openly 
from the Church. 

10 7 See Chap. V. notes 239, 240. 

108 c. 16. See Chap. II. note 95. 

109 Hie est baptismus, qui lavacrum et non acceptum 
repraesentat, et perditum reddit. Compare de Pudicitia, c. 13. 
Quae exinde jam perierat baptismate amisso. 



446 

of Baptism by water, and restore it to those 
who have lost it by transgression. 

In our remarks upon the twenty-third Arti- 
cle of the Church, we alluded to a no passage 
in the Tract de Baptismo, in which Tertullian 
ascribes to the laity an inherent right to ad- 
minister Baptism. We should now deem it 
sufficient to refer the reader to what we have 
there said, had we not observed that the pas- 
sage has been mistranslated by Dr. Waterland, 
111 in his second Letter to Mr. Kelsall on Lay 
Baptism. The passage is as follows — Dandi 
quidem habet jus summus sacerdos, qui est 
Episcopus. Dehinc presbyteri et diaconi, non 
tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate, propter Ecclesise 
honorem, quo salvo salva pax est. Alioquin 
etiam laicis jus est; quod enim ex aequo acci- 
pitur, ex sequo dari potest ; nisi Episcopi jam, 
aut presbyteri, aut diaconi 112 vocantur discentes. 
Domini sermo non debet abscondi ab ullo ; 
proinde baptismus, aeque Dei census, ab om- 
nibus exerceri potest. Of this passage Dr. 
Waterland gives the following translation. 
"The Chief Priest, who is the Bishop, has 



110 c. 17- Chap. V. p. 853. 

111 Waterland's Works, Vol. X. p. 108. 



112 We believe the true reading to be vocarentur discentes. 
Some editions have vocantur dicentes, which reading Water- 
land follows. 



447 

power to give (baptism), and next to him the 
Priests and Deacons (but not without the au- 
thority of the Bishop) because of their honour- 
able post in the Church, in preservation of 
which peace is preserved; otherwise even lay- 
men have a right to give it; for what is re- 
ceived in common, may be given in common. 
Except then that either bishops, or presbyters, 
or deacons intervene, the ordinary Christians 
are called to it." Dr. Waterland subjoins the 
following observation — "I have thrown in two 
or three words in the translation, to clear the 
sense of this passage; I have chiefly followed 
Mr. Bennet, 115 both as to the sense and to 
the pointing of them, and refer you to him 
for their vindication." To us, however, it ap- 
pears certain that both Dr. Waterland and 
Mr. Bennet have mistaken the meaning of the 
passage ; which is — " the Chief Priest, that is 
the Bishop, possesses the right of conferring 
Baptism. After him the Priests and Deacons, 
but not without his authority, out of regard 
to the honour {or dignity) of the Church, on 
the preservation of which depends the preser- 
vation of peace. Otherwise the Laity possess 
the right : for that which all equally receive, 
all may equally confer; unless Bishops, or 

113 Rights of the Clergy, p. 118. Mr. Bennet does not 
quote the latter part of the passage. 



448 

Priests, or Deacons, were alone designated by 
the word Discentes, i. e. m Disciples. The 
word of God ought not to be concealed by 
any; Baptism, therefore, which equally (with 
the word) proceeds from God, may be admi- 
nistered by all." — Our author then goes on to 
say that, although the Laity possess the right, 
yet as modesty and humility are peculiarly 
becoming in them, they ought only to exer- 
cise it in cases of necessity, when the eternal 
salvation of a fellow-creature is at stake. He 
does not, however, extend the right to women ; 
on U5 the contrary he stigmatises the attempt 
on their part to baptise, as a most flagrant 
act of presumption. In the passage just cited, 
Tertullian rests the right of the Laity to ad- 
minister Baptism on the assumption, that a 
man has the power of conferring upon another 
whatever he has himself received, and on the 
comprehensive meaning of the word Disciples 
in John iv. 2. On 1M other occasions, as we 
have seen, he rests it on the ground that all 

114 The allusion is to John iv. 2. Though Jesus himself 
baptised not, but his disciples. Tertullian frequently uses the 
word discentes in this sense. Thus in c. 11. Qui tunc utique 
a discentibus dari non poterat. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 22. 
Tres de discentibus arbitros futurse visionis., et vocis assumit. 
See de Praescriptione Haereticorum, cc. 3. 20. 22. 30. 44. 

115 Compare de Praescriptione Hasreticorum, c. 41. 

116 Chap. IV. note 6. 



449 

Christians are in fact Priests. It is not easy 
to determine which of the three arguments is 
the least conclusive. 

The 117 next question discussed by Tertul- 
lian, relates to the persons who may receive 
the rite of Baptism. He says that it must 
not be hastily conferred ; and recommends delay 
in the case, not only of infants, but also of 
unmarried persons and widows, whom he con- 
siders peculiarly exposed to temptation. What 
he says with respect to the Baptism of infants 
has been already noticed in 118 our remarks 
on the ninth Article of the Church : we then 
observed that the recommendation of delay 
in their case was inconsistent with the con- 
viction, which he manifests on other occasions, 
of the absolute necessity of Baptism to re- 
lieve mankind from the injurious conse- 
quences of Adam's fall. In the 119 Treatise de 
Anima, alluding to what St. Paul says respect- 
ing the holiness of children either of whose 
parents is a Christian, he supposes the Apo- 
stle to affirm that the children of believing 
parents are by the very circumstances of their 
birth marked out to holiness, and, therefore, 

117 c. 18. 118 Chap. V. p. 329- 

119 c. 39. 1 Cor. vii. 14. Compare Hooker's Ecclesiastical 
Polity, Book V. c. 60. 



450 

to salvation. "But," he continues, "the Apo- 
stle had a particular object in view when he 
made the assertion; he wished to prevent the 
dissolution of marriage in cases in which one 
of the parties was a heathen. Otherwise, he 
would have borne in mind our Lord's decla- 
ration that, unless a man is horn of water and 
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
heaven, that is, cannot be holy. So that every 
soul is numbered in Adam, until it is num- 
bered anew in Christ; being, until it is thus 
numbered anew, unclean, and consequently sin- 
ful." It is scarcely possible to conceive words 
more strongly declaratory of the universality 
of original sin, or of the necessity of bringing 
the children of believing parents to the bap- 
tismal font, in order that they may become 
partakers of the holiness for which they are 
designed at their birth. 120 Some have sup- 
posed that Tertullian was led to contend for 
the expediency of delaying Baptism, in con- 
sequence of the opinion, which he entertained, 
concerning the irremissible character of heinous 
sins committed after Baptism; and the passage 
in the Tract de Baptismo on which we have 
been remarking, favours the supposition. But 
not to detain the reader longer with the 
consideration of an inconsistency for which we 

120 Hey's Lectures, Book IV. Article 27. Sect. 14. 



451 

do not undertake to account, we will only add 
that the anti-pgedobaptists lay great stress upon 
this passage: although, as Wall, who has gone 
into a detailed examination of it, justly ob- 
serves, the fair inference from it is that, what- 
ever might be Tertullian's individual opinion, 
the general practice of the Church was to bap- 
tise infants. 

With 121 respect to the season when Baptism 
might be administered, Tertullian remarks that 
every day and every hour are alike suited to 
the performance of so holy a rite. He spe- 
cifies, however, the interval between Good 
Friday and Whit-Sunday as peculiarly appro- 
priate ; because in that interval the passion, 
resurrection, and ascension of Christ, as well 
as the descent of the Holy Ghost, took place 
and were commemorated. 

We now proceed to the other Sacrament 
of our Church, which is called by Tertullian 
122 Eucharistia, 123 Eucharistia? Sacramentum, 
124 Convivium Dominicum, 125 Convivium Dei, 

121 c 19. 

122 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c 36. Eucharistia 
pascit. 

123 De Corona, c. 3. referred to in Chap. V. note 234. 

124 Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4. 

125 Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 9. In convivio Dei : but Sender 
reads in connubio Dei. 

ff2 



452 

126 Panis et Calicis Sacramentum. The term 
127 sacrificium is also applied to the Eucharist; 
but in the same general manner in which it 
is applied to other parts of divine worship, 
and to other modes of conciliating the divine 
favour; as to 128 prayer, or fasting, or bodily 
mortifications. Tertullian 129 says that the Eu- 
charist, which was instituted by our blessed 
Lord during a meal — the institution being 
accompanied by a command which applied 
generally to all present — was in his own day 
celebrated in the assemblies which were held 
before day-break; and received only at the 
hands of the Presidents. He notices also the 
extreme solicitude of the Christians to prevent 
any part of the bread and wine from falling 
to the ground; and speaks of the communi- 
cants as standing 130 at the altar of God, when 

126 p ro i n d e panis et calicis sacramento, jam in Evangelio 
probavimus corporis et sanguinis Dominici veritatem, ad- 
versus phantasma Marcionis. Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 8. 
This title ought to have been added to those mentioned in 
our remarks on the twenty-fifth Article of the Church. 
Chap. V. p. 357. 

127 See the Tract de Oratione, c. 14. De Cultu Fcemi- 
narum, L. ii. c. 11. 

128 Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 1. De Res. Carnis, c. 8. 

129 De Corona, c. 3. Eucharistiae sacramentum, et in 
tempore victus et omnibus mandatum a Domino, etiam ante 
lucanis ccetibus, nee de aliorum manibus quam praesidentium 
sumimus. — Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid decuti in 
terram anxie patimur. 

130 Nonne solennior erit statio tua, si et ad aram Dei 

steteris ? 



453 

they received the sacrament. It may, however,, 
be doubted whether the expression is to be 
understood literally ; or whether we are war- 
ranted in inferring from it that altars had at 
that early period been generally introduced into 
the places of religious assembly. The kiss of 
peace appears to have been constantly given 
at the celebration of the Eucharist. Our author 
calls it m signaculum orationi$;—an expression 
from which 132 Bingham infers that, in that age 
of the Church, it was given after the prayers 
of consecration; but there appears to be no 
sufficient reason for understanding the word 
orationis in that restricted sense. We are 
rather disposed to infer 133 that, at the conclu- 
sion of all their meetings for the purposes of 
devotion, the early Christians were accustomed 
to give the kiss of peace, in token of the 
brotherly love subsisting amongst them. 

The Roman Catholic commentators on 

steteris ? De Oratione, c. 14. Bingham (Book viii. c. 6. 
Sect. 12.) refers to a passage in the first Tract ad Uxorem, 
c. 7« Aram enim Dei mundam proponi oportet : but it is 
evidently nothing to the purpose. He refers also to the 
Tract de Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 10. Quomodo audebit 
orationem ducere ad altare? but the reading ad altare is 
only a conjecture of Rigault. 

131 De Oratione, c. 14. 

132 Book xv. c. 3. Sect. 3. 

133 See ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 4, quoted in note 11 of this 
Chapter. 



454 

Tertullian are naturally desirous to allege his 
authority in support of the doctrine of Tran- 
substantiation. When, however, the different 
passages in which he speaks of the body and 
blood of Christ are compared together, it will 
be evident that he never thought of any cor- 
poreal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He 
speaks, 154 indeed, "of feeding on the fatness of 
the Lord's body, that is, on the Eucharist ;" 
and " of our flesh 155 feeding on the body and 
blood of Christ, in order that our soul may 
be fattened of God." These, it must be al- 
lowed, are strong expressions ; but when com- 
pared with other passages in his writings, 
they will manifestly appear to have been 
used in a figurative sense. Thus, 136 in com- 
menting upon the clause in the Lord's 
Prayer, > Give us this day our daily bread? 

134 Atque ita exinde opimitate Dominici corporis vescitur, 
Eucharistia scilicet. De Pudicitia, c 9- where the words 
Eucharistid scilicet, bear the appearance of a gloss. See also 
adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 7- Adv. Judaeos, c. 14. Dominicae 
gratiae quasi visceratione quadam. rruerentur. 

135 Caro corpore et sanguine Christi vescitur, ut et anima 
de Deo saginetur. De Res. Carnis, c. 8. 

136 Quanquam panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie 
spiritaliter potius intelligamus. Christus enim panis noster 
est, quia vita Christus, et vita panis. Ego sum, inquit, panis 
vitce. Et paulo supra : Panis est sermo Dei vivi, qui descendit 
de cceYis. (The words are not accurately quoted.) Turn 
quod et corpus ejus in pane censetur, Hoc est corpus meum. 
De Oratione, c. 6. Compare de Res. Carnis, c. 37- 



455 

he says that we should understand it spiritu-. 
ally. "Christ is our bread: for Christ is life, 
and bread is life. Christ said, / am the bread 
of life ; and a little before, The word of the 
living God which descended from heaven, that 
is bread. Moreover his body is reckoned (or 
supposed) to be in the bread, in the words 
This is my body" It is evident, from the whole 
tenor of the passage, that Tertullian affixed 
a figurative interpretation to the words, This 
is my body. In other places, he expressly calls 
the bread the 137 representation of the body of 
Christ ; and the wine, of his blood. 

There is one passage, from which Pamelius 
has so strangely contrived to extract an argu- 
ment in favour of transubstantiation, that we 
cannot forbear referring the reader to it. It is 
138 in the Treatise against Praxeas, where Tertul- 

137 Nee panem, quo ipsum corpus suum reprcesentat. Adv. 
Marcionem, L. i. c. 14. Panem corpus suum appellans, ut 
et hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui Jiguram pani dedisse. 
L. iii. c. 19- Adv. Judseos, c. 10. Acceptum panem et dis- 
tributum discipulis, corpus ilium suum fecit, hoc est corpus 
meum dicendo, id est Jigura corporis mei — ut autem et san- 
guinis veterem figuram in vino recognoscas, aderit Esaias. 
Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 40. See also ad Uxorem, L. ii. 
c. 5. De Anima, c. 17- Alium postea vini saporem, quod 
in sanguinis sui memoriam consecravit. 

138 Igitur sermo in carne, dum et de hoc quaerendum, 
quomodo sermo caro sit factus, utrumne quasi transfiguratus 
in came, an indutus carnem? imo indutus. Caeterum Deum 
immutabilem et informabilem credi necesse est, ut aeternum. 

Transfiguratio 



456 

lian is enquiring — " How the Word was made 
flesh? was he transfigured into flesh, or did he 
put on flesh ?" — " Surely, he put it on," is Ter- 
tullian's answer, " for as God is eternal, we must 
also believe that he is immutable, and inca- 
pable of being formed (into another substance). 
But transfiguration is a destruction of that 
which before existed: whatever is transfigured 
into another thing, ceases to be what it was, 
and begins to be what it was not." This pas- 
sage, says Pamelius, makes for transubstanti- 
ation. By what process of reasoning he arrived 
at this conclusion, we are utterly at a loss to 
conceive. Tertullian evidently means to say 
that if the Word had been transfigured into 
flesh, either the divine nature would have been 
entirely destroyed, and the human alone would 
have remained — or a third 139 nature have arisen 
from the mixture of the former two, as the 
substance called electrum from the mixture 

Transfiguratio autem interemptio est pristini. Omne enim 
quodcunque transfiguratur in aliud, desinit esse quod fuerat, 
et incipit esse quod non erat. Deus autem neque desinit esse, 
neque aliud potest esse, &c. c. 27- The remark of Pamelius 
is, Eacit hie locus pro transubstantione, quam Catholici in 
Sacramento Eucharistiae adserunt. 

139 Si enim sermo ex transfiguratione et demutatione sub- 
stantia caro factus est; una jam erat substantia Iesus ex 
duabus, ex carne et Spiritu, mixtura quaedam, ut electrum 
ex auro et argento; et incipit nee aurum esse, id est, 
Spiritus, neque argentum, id est caro; dum alterum altero 
mutatur, et tertium quid efficitur, c, 27- 



457 

of gold and silver. In either case the sub- 
stance, which is transfigured, disappears; and 
that, into which it is transfigured, is alone 
cognizable by the senses. Whereas according 
to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the bread, 
the substance which is changed, remains 
in appearance, while that into which it is 
changed, the body of Christ, is not seen. — 
Pamelius takes another opportunity of en- 
forcing the doctrine of transubstantiation, in 
commenting on a passage in 140 the first Book 
against Marcion, from which an inference di- 
rectly opposed to it, may be fairly drawn. — 
From what has been already said, it is evident 
that the Roman Catholic custom, of with- 
holding the cup from the Laity, was unknown 
to Tertullian ; and that both the bread and 
the wine were, in his day, alike offered to the 
communicants. 141 

140 Non putem impudentiorem, quam qui in aliena aqua 
alii Deo tingitur, ad alienum ccelum alii Deo expanditur, 
in aliena terra alii Deo sternitur, super alienum panem alii 
Deo gratiarum actionibus fungitur, de alienis bonis ob alium 
Deum nomine eleemosynae et dilectionis operatur, c. 23, 
sub fine. Tertullian is here contending that, if the doctrine 
of the Marcionites was true — that the supreme God who 
sent Christ was not the God who created the world — then 
it would follow that he had most unjustly appropriated to 
his own uses the works and productions of another. 

141 A reference should here have been made to the practice 
of reserving a portion of the consecrated bread, and eating 
it at home before every other nourishment. Accepto cor- 

pore 



458 

One other rite of the Church still remains 
to be considered — that of Marriage, 142 Bingham 
infers, apparently with justice, from a passage 
in 143 the Tract de Monogamia, that the parties 
were bound in the first instance to make known 
their intentions to the Church and obtain the 
permission of the Ecclesiastical Orders. They 
were also bound to 144 obtain the consent of 
their parents. 145 Parties marrying clandestinely 
ran the hazard of being regarded in the light 
of adulterers or fornicators. That marriage 

pore Domini et reservato, utrumque salvum est. De Oratione, 
c. 14. Non sciet maritus quid secreto ante omnem cibum 
gustas : et si sciverit panem, non ilium credit esse qui dicitur. 
Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 5. See Bingham, L. xv. c. 4. Sect. 13. 
This practice, having given occasion to abuses, was forbidden. 
See the sixth Rubric after the Communion Service. 

142 Rook xxii. c. 2. Sect. 2. 

143 c. 11. Qualis es id matrimonium postulans, quod iis 
a quibus postulas non licet habere — ab Episcopo monogamo, 
a presbyteris et diaconis ejusdem sacramenti, a viduis quarum 
sectam in te recusasti? Et illi plane sic dabunt viros et 
uxores, quomodo buccellas (Hoc enim est apud illos, Omni 
petenti te dabis,) et conjungent vos in Ecclesia Virgine, unius 
Christi unica sponsa. 

144 Nam nee in terris filii sine consensu patrum rite et 
jure nubunt. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 9- 

145 Ideo penes nos occulta? quoque conjunctiones, id est 
non prius apud ecclesiam professae, juxta moechiam et for- 
nicationem judicari periclitantur. De Pudicitia, c. 4. He 
applies a similar title to marriages contracted by Christians 
with Heathens. Haec quum ita sint, fideles gentilium matri- 
monia subeuntes stupri reos esse constat, et arcendos ab omni 
communicatione fraternitatis. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 3. quoted 
in Chapter V. note 319. 



459 

was esteemed by the Christians a strictly re- 
ligious contract, is evident from a passage H6 in 
the second Tract ad Uxorem ; in which Ter- 
tullian expresses his inability to describe the 
happiness of that marriage, which is cemented 
by the Church, is confirmed by prayers and 
oblations, is sealed by a blessing, is announced 
by angels, and ratified by the Father in heaven. 
He mentions 147 also the custom of putting a 
ring on the finger of the female, as a part 
of the rites, not of marriage, but of espousal, 
intended as an earnest of the future marriage. 
He speaks of it as observed by the heathens, 
but in terms which imply that he deemed it 
perfectly innocent. In the 148 Tract de Virgi- 
nibus velandis, the kiss and the joining of 
hands are noticed as parts of the ceremony. 

Tertullian, as we have seen, 149 states that 

146 See Chapter V. p. 401. Unde sufficiamus ad enarran- 
dam felicitatem ejus matrimonii, quod ecclesia conciliate et 
confirmat oblatio, et obsignat benedictio, angeli renuntiant, 
Pater rato habet? c. 9. The words ecclesia conciliat may 
either mean, "when both the parties are Christians/' or 
"when the sanction of the Church has been regularly ob- 
tained/' or may embrace both meanings. 

147 Quum aurum nulla norat praeter unico digito, quern 
sponsus oppignerasset pronubo annulo. Apology, c. 6. See 
also de Idololatria, c. 16. 

148 Si autem ad desponsationem velantur, quia et cor- 
pore et spiritu masculo mixtae sunt, per osculum et dex- 
teras, &c. c. 11. 

149 Ad Scapulam, c, 4. referred to in Chap. I. p. 55. 



460 

a Christian, named Proculus, cured the Empe- 
ror Severus of a disorder, by anointing him 
with oil. It may be doubted whether we 
ought to infer from this statement that a 
practice then subsisted in the Church, of anoint- 
ing sick persons with oil, founded on the in- 
junction in the Epistle of St. James. This, 
however, is certain, that the practice, if it sub- 
sisted, was directly opposed to the Romish 
Sacrament of extreme Unction ; which is ad- 
ministered, not with a view to the recovery 
of the patient, but when his case is hopeless. 

We have had frequent occasion to allude 
to a passage in 15 ° the Tract de Corona, in which 
Tertullian mentions a variety of customs, resting 
solely on the authority of tradition. Among 
them is the practice of making the sign of 
the cross upon the forehead, which was most 
scrupulously observed by the primitive Christ- 
ians : — they ventured not to perform the most 
trivial act, not even to put on their shoes, 
until they had thus testified their entire reliance 
upon the cross of Christ. The 151 Pagans ap- 
pear to have regarded this practice with sus- 
picion, as a species of magical superstition. 

150 c. 3. See the Scorpiace, c. 1. quoted in Chapter II. 
note 8. ; where the practice is described as a protection or 
remedy against the bite of poisonous animals. 

151 Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c, 5. 



461 

In 152 our remarks upon the testimony af- . 
forded by our author's writings to the exist- 
ence of miraculous powers in the Church, we 
said that the only power, of the exercise of 
which specific instances are alleged, was that 
of exorcising evil spirits. 153 This power, ac- 
cording to him, was not confined to the Clergy 
or to any particular order of men, but was 
possessed by all Christians in common. Ter- 
tullian mentions also the practice 154 of exsuf- 
flation, or of blowing away any smoke or 
savour which might arise from the victims on 
the altar, &c. in order to escape the pollution 
of idolatry. 

We will conclude our observations on this 
branch of the Internal History of the Church, 
by referring the reader to a passage, in which 
there is an allusion to 155 the custom of pub- 
licly announcing the third, sixth, and ninth 
hours. 

152 Chap. II. p. 102. 

153 Apology, cc. 23. 37- 43. De Aniraa, c. 57- De Spec- 
taculis, c. 26. De Idololatria, c. 11. De Corona, c. 11. De 
Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 10. 

154 De Idololatria, c. 11. Quo ore Christanus thurarius, si 
per temp] a transibit, spumantes aras despuet, et exsufflabit, 
quibus ipse prospexit ? Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 5. Quum aliquid 
immundum flantis explodis. 

155 De Jejuniis, c. 10. 



CHAP. VII. 

Concerning the Heresies and Divisions 
which troubled the church. 



We now come to the last, and unhappily not 
the least extensive, of the five branches into 
which Mosheim divides the Internal History of 
the Church — the Heresies by which its repose 
was troubled during the second century. But 
before I proceed to consider his enumeration of 
Christian sects, I must briefly call the reader's 
attention to Tertullian's Tract against the 
Jews. Mosheim, in x his chapter on the Doc- 
trine of the Church, has observed " that Justin 
Martyr and Tertullian embarked in a con- 
troversy with the Jews, which it was not pos- 
sible for them to manage with the highest 
success and dexterity, as they were very little 
acquainted with the language, the history, 
and the learning of the Hebrews, and wrote 
with more levity and inaccuracy than such 
a subject would justify." That Tertullian was 

1 Century II. Part ii. c. 3. Sect. 7- 



463 

unacquainted with the language of the He- 
brews 2 may be allowed; but thoroughly con- 
versant as he was with the Septuagint Ver- 
sion of the Old Testament, his knowledge of 
their history could be little inferior to that of 
the Hebrews themselves. Whether, however, 
he was well or ill qualified to manage the con- 
troversy with them, it must be at once in- 
teresting and instructive to enquire in what 
manner the controversy was actually conducted 
by the early Christians. 

Our 5 author begins his Tract adversus 
Judgeos with disputing the claim set up by 
the Jews to be considered exclusively as the 
people of God. In support of this claim, they 
alleged in the first place, that they were the 
descendants of the younger brother Jacob, of 
whom it was predicted that he should rule 
over the elder Esau — in the second, that the 
Law was given to them by Moses. Tertullian 
contends on the contrary that the Christians, 
inasmuch as they were posterior in time to 
the Jews, were in fact the descendants of the 
younger brother: and with respect to the Law 
he observes that mankind never were without 

2 We have observed that Tertullian sometimes speaks 
as if he was acquainted with Hebrew. Chap. I. note 145. 

3 cc. 1, 2. See Genesis xxv. 23. 



464 

a law. God gave Adam a law, 4 in which were 
contained all the precepts of the decalogue. 
Moreover, the written law of Moses was nothing 
more than a repetition of the natural unwritten 
law; by obeying which the patriarchs gained 
the favour of God, although they neither kept 
the Jewish sabbath nor practised the Jewish 
rite of circumcision. 

Hence, 5 proceeds Tertullian, it is evident 
that circumcision does not confer, as the Jews 
pretend, an exclusive title to the favour of 
God. Abraham himself pleased God, before 
he was circumcised. Carnal circumcision was 
designed as a mark, by which the Jews might 
be distinguished from other nations in all 
ages — but particularly in these latter days, when 
the heavy judgements 6 predicted by the pro- 
phets are fallen upon them. We may also 
collect with certainty, from the prophetic writ- 
ings, that carnal circumcision was not intended 
to be of perpetual observance. 7 Jeremiah 
speaks of a spiritual circumcision, as well as 

4 Tertullian points out the manner in which our first 
parents violated each of the commandments of the decalogue 
by eating the forbidden fruit, c 2. See Chapter V. p. 330. 

5 c. 3. 

6 Tertullian supposes the prediction in Isaiah i. 7- to have 
referred to the edict of Adrian, by which the Jews were 
prevented from setting foot in Jerusalem. 

7 c. iv. ver. 8. 



465 

of a -new covenant, which God was to give 
to his people. 

In like manner 8 the observance of the sab- 
bath was not designed to be perpetual. The 
Jews indeed say that God sanctified the seventh 
day from the creation of the world, because 
on that day he rested from his work. But 
the sanctification spoken of applies to an 
eternal, not a temporal sabbath. For what 
evidence can be produced that either Adam, 
or Abel, or Enoch, or Noah, or Abraham, kept 
the sabbath ? It 9 is evident, therefore, that the 
circumcision, the sabbath, and the sacrifices 
appointed under the Mosaic dispensation were 
intended to subsist only until a new lawgiver 
should arise, who was to introduce a spiritual 
circumcision, a spiritual sabbath, and spiritual 
sacrifices. 

Having thus shewn that the Mosaic dis- 
pensation was not designed to be perpetual, 
but preparatory to another system, 10 Tertullian 
says that the great point to be ascertained is, 
whether the exalted personage, pointed out by 
the prophets as the giver of a new law — as 
enjoining a spiritual sabbath and spiritual sacri- 
fices — as the eternal ruler of an eternal king- 

8 c. 4. 9 c. 5. 10 c. 7. 

Gg 



466 

dom — had yet appeared on earth. " Now it is 
certain that Jesus, whom we affirm to be the 
promised lawgiver, has promulgated a new law : 
and that the predictions respecting the Messiah 
have been accomplished in him. Compare, for 
instance, " the prophecies of the Old Testa- 
ment, which describe the wide extent of the 
Messiah's kingdom, with the actual diffusion 
of Christianity at the present moment. Na- 
tions, which the Roman arms have never yet 
subdued, have submitted themselves to the 
dominion of Jesus and received the Gospel." 

"But," 12 proceeds our author, "there is in 
the prophet Daniel an express prediction of 
the time when the Messiah was to appear." 
The numerical errors which have crept into 
Tertullian's text, joined to his gross ignorance 
of chronology, render it impossible to unravel 
the difficulties in which his calculation of the 
Seventy Weeks is involved. But the prin- 
ciples of the calculation are, that the com- 
mencement of the Seventy Weeks is to be 
dated from the first year of Darius, in which 

11 The prophecy particularly selected by Tertullian, is 
from Isaiah xlv. 1. But between his version of the passage 
and that given in bur English Bibles, there are important 
differences: in our translation it seems to apply exclusively 
to Cyrus. 

12 c. 8. 



467 

Daniel states that he saw the vision — that 
sixty-two weeks and half a week were com- 
pleted in the forty-first year of the reign of 
Augustus when Christ was born— and that the 
remaining seven weeks and half a week were 
completed in the first year of Vespasian, when 
the Jews were reduced beneath the Roman 
yoke. I need scarcely observe that none of 
the above principles are admitted by the learned 
men of modern times, who have endeavoured 
to elucidate the prophecy of the Seventy 
Weeks. 

Tertullian 13 goes on to shew that the pro- 
phecies of the Old Testament, which foretold 
the birth of the Messiah, were accomplished 
in Jesus. Thus it was predicted by 14 Isaiah 
that he should be born of a Virgin — that his 
name should be called Emmanuel — and that, 
before he was able to pronounce the names 
of his father and mother, he should take of 
the riches of Damascus, and of the spoils of 
Samaria from the King of Assyria. The Jews 
on the contrary affirmed that no part of this 
prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus. He was nei- 

13 c. 9. 

14 Tertullian here connects, as Justin Martyr had done 
before him, Isaiah vii. 14. with viii. 4. and gives a similar 
explanation of the passage. See the dialogue with Trypho, 
Part II. p. 303. A, p. 310. C. 

GG2 



468 

ther called Emmanuel, nor did he take of the 
spoils of Damascus and Samaria. They affirmed 
also that the Hebrew word, which we trans- 
late " Virgin," ought to be translated " a young 
female." To these objections our author re- 
plies, that as the divine and human natures 
were united in Christ, he was not merely 
called, but actually was Emmanuel, that is, 
God with us : — and that with respect to the 
spoils of Damascus and Samaria, the Jews 
were misled by their preconceived notions that 
the Messiah was to be a warlike prince and 
conqueror; whereas the words of the prophet 
were accomplished, when the Magi brought 
to the infant Jesus their offerings of gold, and 
frankincense, and myrrh — the peculiar produce 
of Arabia and the East. Tertullian admits 
that, in the Psalms and in other parts of the 
Old Testament, the Messiah is spoken of as 
a triumphant warrior ; but the expressions, he 
observes, are to be understood of spiritual 
triumphs, achieved over the corrupt hearts and 
perverse dispositions of man. With respect to 
the word Virgin, Tertullian observes that the 
prophet begins with telling Ahaz that the 
Lord would give him a sign ; meaning evi- 
dently that some event would take place out 
of the ordinary course of nature: whereas 
the pregnancy of a young female is an event 



469 

of daily occurrence. In order, therefore, to give . 
any consistent meaning to the prophet's words, 
we must suppose him to have alluded to the 
pregnancy of a virgin. 

One of the objections urged by the Jews 
was, that in no part of the Old Testament 
was it predicted that the future deliverer should 
bear the name of Jesus. To this Tertullian 
replies, that Joshua was the type of Christ: 
and that when Moses changed his name from 
Oshea to Joshua or Jesus, because he was 
destined to conduct the Israelites into the 
earthly Canaan, it was manifestly implied that 
the Messiah, who was to introduce mankind 
into the heavenly Canaan, would also be called 
Jesus. Our author then shews from Isaiah xi. 2. 
that the Messiah was to spring from the seed 
of David — from Isaiah liii. that he was to un- 
dergo severe humiliations and sufferings with the 
greatest patience — from Isaiah Iviii. that he was 
to be a preacher of righteousness — and from 
Isaiah xxxv. that he was to work miracles. All 
these marks, by which the Messiah was to be 
distinguished, were actually found in Jesus. 

But 15 the death of Jesus on the cross 
constituted, in the opinion of the Jews, the 

15 c 10, 



470 

strongest argument against the belief that he 
was the promised Messiah. 16 It had been ex- 
pressly declared, in the Mosaic law, that "he 
who was hanged on a tree was accursed of 
God." Was it then credible that God would 
expose the Messiah to a death so ignominious ? 
nor could any passage of Scripture be pro- 
duced in which it was predicted that the 
Messiah was to die on the cross. To the 
former part of this objection Tertullian replies, 
that the persons, of whom Moses declared that 
they were accursed, were malefactors — men who 
had committed sins worthy of death. How 
then could the declaration be applicable to 
Jesus, in whose mouth was no guile, and whose 
life was one uninterrupted course of justice 
and benevolence? With respect to the latter 
part of the objection, Tertullian admits that 
the particular mode of the Messiah's death is 
no where expressly predicted in the Old 
Testament ; but contends that it is in many 
places obscurely prefigured — for instance, in the 
twenty-second Psalm. He then goes on to pro- 
duce various passages of Scripture, in which 
he finds allusions to the form of the cross — 
allusions, which were certainly never contem- 
plated by the sacred penman, and are so 
grossly extravagant that it is difficult to con- 

16 Deuteronomy xxi. 22. 



471 

eeive how they could ever enter into the head # 
of any rational being. I know not whether 
it will be deemed any apology for Tertullian 
to observe that he was not the inventor 
of these fancies ; for it argues perhaps a 
more lamentable weakness of judgement to 
have copied, than to have invented them : 
most, however, if not all, are to be found in 
Justin Martyr. In speaking of the circum- 
stances connected with our Saviour's Passion, 
Tertullian asserts that the preternatural dark- 
ness at the crucifixion was predicted by the 
17 prophet Amos. "But not only," 18 continues 
our author, " did the prophets predict the death 
of the Messiah: they foretold also the disper- 
sion of the Jewish people, and the destruction 
of Jerusalem." The passages which he alleges 
in proof of this statement are Ezekiel viii. 12. 
and Deuteronomy xxviii. 64. " Here then," 
he says, addressing the Jews, " we find an ad- 
ditional proof that Jesus was the Christ : — 
your rejection of him has been followed by 
a series of the most grievous calamities that 
ever befel a nation— your holy temple has been 
consumed with fire, and you are forbidden 
to set foot upon the territory of your an- 
cestors. 19 Was it not also foretold of the Mes- 

17 c. viii. 9. 18 c. 11. 

19 c. 12. Psalm ii. 7. Isaiah xlii. 6- 



472 

siah that the Gentiles should be his inheritance 
and the ends of the earth his possession ? was 
he not described as the light of the Gentiles f 
and are not these predictions accomplished in 
the diffusion of the Gospel of Jesus through 
every part of the known world?" 

"We, 20 therefore, do not err when we 
affirm that the Messiah is already come. The 
error is yours, who still look for his coming. 
The 21 Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem 
of Judah, according to the prophet. But at 
the present moment no one of the stock of 
Israel remains at Bethlehem: either, therefore, 
the prophecy is already fulfilled, or its fulfil- 
ment is impossible," 22 Tertullian concludes with 
pointing out the source of the error of the 
Jews, who did not perceive that two advents 
of Christ were announced in Scripture — the 
first in humiliation, the second in glory. Fix- 
ing their thoughts exclusively on the latter, 
they refused to acknowledge a meek and suf- 
fering Saviour. 

Such were the arguments by which Ter- 
tullian endeavoured to shew, in opposition to 
the objections of the Jews, that Jesus of Naza- 
reth was the promised Messiah. It appears 

20 c. 13. 21 Micah v. 1. 22 c. 14. 



473 

from them that the controversy then stood, 
precisely on the same footing on which it 
stands in the present day: and that the Jews 
of his time resorted to the same subterfuges 
and cavils as the modern Jews, in order to 
evade the force of the prophecies which, as 
the Christians maintained, had been fulfilled 
in Jesus. If we turn to Bp. Pearson, we shall 
find that the course, which he pursues in 
establishing the truth of the second 23 Article 
of the Creed, differs not very materially from 
that of our author. We notice this resem- 
blance for the purpose of removing, at least 
in part, the unfavourable impression which 
Mosheim's strictures are calculated to create 
against this portion of Tertullian's labours. In 
judging also of the Treatise ad versus Judeeos, 
we should bear in mind that it has come 
down to us in a corrupt state, some ^pas- 
sages bearing evident marks of interpolation. 
We will conclude our remarks upon it with 
observing that Tertullian, when he charges the 
Jews with confounding the two advents of 
Christ, makes no allusion to the notion of two 
Messiahs — one suffering, the other triumphant ; 
whence we are warranted in concluding either 

23 See p. 76. where he shews that Joshua was a type of 
Christ. See also Article III. « born of the Virgin Mary/' 
and Article IV. "■ was crucified." 

24 See c. 5. and c. 14. sub fine. 



474 

that he was ignorant of this device, or that 
it had not been resorted to in his day. 

To return to Mosheim. In his ^enume- 
ration of the heresies which divided the Church 
in the second century, he first mentions that 
which originated in a superstitious attachment 
to the Mosaic law. This heresy is scarcely 
noticed by Tertullian. There can indeed be 
little doubt that, after the promulgation of 
Adrian's edict, those Christians who had united 
the observance of the Mosaic ritual with the pro- 
fession of the Gospel, fearful least they should 
be confounded with the Jews, gradually aban- 
doned the Jewish ceremonies — so that, in the 
time of Tertullian, the number of 26 Judaizing 
Christians had become extremely small. We are 
now speaking of those whom Mosheim calls 
27 Nazarenes — who, though they retained the 
Mosaic rites, believed all the fundamental arti- 
cles of the Christian faith. The Ebionites on 

25 Century II. Part ii. Chap. 5. 

26 See Wilson's Illustration of the method of explaining 
the New Testament, &c. c. 11. where he enumerates the 
different causes which contributed to the gradual extinction 
of the Judaizing Christians, or as he terms them, Christian 
Jews. 

27 The Jews, in Tertullian' s time, appear to have called 
Christians in general by the name of Nazarenes. Adv. Mar- 
donem, L. iv. c. 8. sub initio. Apud Hebrseos Christianos, 
L. iii. c. 12. 



475 

the contrary, 28 who also maintained the neces-. 
sity of observing the ceremonial law, rejected 
many essential doctrines of Christianity. They 
are more than once mentioned by Tertullian, 
who always speaks of them as having received 
their appellation from their founder Ebion. 
He did not write any express treatise against 
them; but we learn from incidental notices in 
his works that they 29 denied the miraculous 
conception, and affirmed that 30 Jesus was not 
the Son of God, but a mere man born accord- 
ing to the ordinary course of nature. 

The next Heresies, of which Mosheim 
speaks, are those which he imagines to 
have arisen from the attempt to explain 
the doctrines of Christianity, in a manner 
conformable to the dictates of the oriental 
philosophy, concerning the origin of evil. 
In every age, both before and since the pro- 
mulgation of the Gospel, this question has 
been found to baffle the powers of the 
human understanding, and to involve in an 
endless maze of error all who have engaged 
in the unavailing research. Of this Tertul- 

28 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 33. 

29 Quam utique virginem constat fuisse, licet Ebion resistat. 
De Virginibus velandis, c. 6. 

30 j) e Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 33. De Carne 
Christi, cc. 14, 18, 24. 



476 

lian was fully aware; and he traces the rise 
of many of the heretical opinions which he 
31 combats, to the curiosity of vain and 
presumptuous men, venturing to explore the 
hidden things of God. But though he so far 
connects philosophy with heresy, as to style 
the m philosophers the ancestors of the Here- 
tics ; yet neither he, nor any other of the 
early Fathers, appears to have thought that 
the Heretics derived their notions from 33 the 
oriental philosophy. On the contrary, 34 Ter- 
tullian repeatedly charges them with borrow- 
ing from Pythagoras and Plato and other 
Greek Philosophers. In like manner 35 Ire- 
nseus affirms that Valentinus was indebted for 
his succession of iEons to the Theogonies of 
the Greek Poets. It will be said, perhaps, that 

31 Unde malum, et quare ? et unde homo, et quomodo ? et 
quod proxime Valentinus proposuit, unde Deus? De Prae- 
scriptione Haereticorum, c. 7« 

32 Haereticorum Patriarchae Philosophi. Adv. Hermoge- 
nem, c. 8. De Anima, cc. 3, 23. Ipsi illi sapientiae profes- 
sores, de quorum ingeniis omnis haeresis animatur. Adv. 
Marcionem, L. i. c. 13. See also L. v. c. 19. 

33 Mosheim refers to Clemens Alexandrinus, L. vii. c. 17* 
p. 898. and to Cyprian, Ep. 75. But those passages only 
confirm his statement, that Basilides, Cerdo, and the other 
Heretics began to publish their opinions about the time of 
Adrian : respecting the Oriental origin of the opinions they 
are silent. 

34 Ubi tunc Marcion, Ponticus Nauclerus, Stoicae studi- 
osus ? ubi Valentinus, Platonica? Sectator ? De Praescriptione 
Haereticorum, c. 30. 35 L. ii. c. 19. 



477 

the authority of the early Fathers can be of. 
little weight in the determination of this ques- 
tion, on account of their ignorance of the 
Eastern languages; and that it matters little 
whether the Heretics derived their opinions 
directly from the East; or indirectly through 
the medium of Pythagoras and Plato, the 
germ of whose philosophy is known to have 
been formed during their residence in Egypt. 
The present is not a fit opportunity for en- 
quiring into the reality of this alleged con- 
nexion between the Oriental and Platonic 
philosophies. Our object in the above ob- 
servations is merely to shew that, if any 
weight is to be attached to the opinions of 
the early Fathers, the heresies, which Mo- 
sheim calls oriental, ought rather to be deno- 
minated Grecian. 

Mosheim speaks of two branches, into 
which the oriental Heretics were divided — 
the Asiatic and the Egyptian branch. Elxai, 
whom he mentions as the head of the former, 
appears to have been entirely unknown to 
Tertullian; nor does Mosheim himself seem 
to have arrived at any certain conclusion 
respecting this Heretic: for he doubts whe- 
ther the followers of Elxai were to be 
numbered among the Christian or Jewish 



478 

sects. Of Saturninus, whom he also mentions 
as a leader of the Asiatic branch, the name 
occurs but 56 once in our author's writings. 
He is there described as a disciple of Men- 
ander, who was himself a disciple of Simon 
Magus; and he is said to have maintained 
the following extraordinary doctrine respecting 
the origin of the human race — that man was 
formed by the angels, an imperfect image of 
the Supreme Being — that he crept upon the 
ground like a worm in a state of utter help- 
lessness and inability to stand upright, until 
the Supreme Being mercifully animated him 
with the spark of life, and raised him from 
the earth — and that at his death this spark 
will bring him back to the original source of 
his existence. 37 0f Cerdo, whom Mosheim 
also numbers among the leaders of the Asia- 
tic sect, Tertullian only states that Mar- 
cion borrowed many notions from him. But 
against Marcion himself our author expressly 
composed five books, in which he has entered 
into an elaborate examination and confutation 
of that Heretic's errors. 

From various notices scattered over Ter- 



36 De Anima, c. 23. 

37 Adv. Marcionem, L. i. cc 2, 22. sub fine. L. iii. c. 21 
L. iv. c. 17- 



479 

tullian's writings we may collect 38 that Mar- 
cion was a native of Pontus — that S9 he 
flourished during the reign of Antoninus 
Pius and the pontificate of Eleutherius ; be- 
ing originally in communion with the Church 
at Rome— that he was a man of a restless 
temper, fond of .novelties, by the publication 
of which he unsettled the faith of the 
weaker brethren, and was in consequence 
more than once ejected from the congrega- 
tion — that he afterwards became sensible of 
his errors, and expressed a wish to be recon- 
ciled to the Church — and that his wish was 
granted, on condition that he should bring 
back with him those whom he had perverted 
by his doctrines. He died, however, before 
he was formally restored to its communion. 
Tertullian refers in confirmation of some 



38 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. SO. Adv. Marcio- 
nem, L. i. cc. 1, 19. Tertullian frequently calls Marcion Pon- 
ticus NaucleruSj because his countrymen, the natives of Pontus, 
were chiefly occupied in nautical pursuits, L. i. c. 18. sub 
fine. L. iii. c. 6. 

39 Adv. Marcionem, L. v. c. 19. L. iv. c. 4. where it is 
said that Marcion in the first fervour of his faith made a 
donation of a sum of money to the Church, which was re- 
turned to him when he was expelled from its communion. 
Some learned men doubt the story respecting Marcion's 
repeated ejections from the Church, and suppose that Ter- 
tullian confounded Marcion with Cerdo. Lardner's History 
of Heretics, c. 9, Sect. 3. 



480 

parts of this statement to a certain 40 letter of 
Marcion, the genuineness of which appears 
to have been questioned by his followers. 

41 Marcion, like many other Heretics, was be- 
trayed into his errors and extravagances, by 
the desire of framing a system, which would 
reconcile the existence of evil in the universe 
with the perfect power and wisdom and 
goodness of the Supreme Being. But the 
precise nature of his opinions will be best un- 
derstood from a brief analysis of the five 
books written by our author against them, and 
still extant amongst his works. 

Tertullian had previously written two 
works in refutation of Marcion's doctrines. 

42 The first was a hurried composition, the 
defects of which he intended to supply 
by a second and more perfect treatise. Of 

40 Sicut et ipse confiteris in quadam epistola : et tui non 
negant, et nostri probant. De Carne Christi, c. 2. But in the 
fourth book against Marcion, c. 4. we find the following sen- 
tence. Quid nunc si negaverint Marcionitae primam apud nos 
fidera ejus, adversus epistolam quoque ipsius ? quid si nee 
epistolam agnoverint? 

41 Languens enim (quod et nunc multi, et maxime hasre- 
tici) circa mali quaestionem, Unde malum ? Adv. Marcionem, 
L. i. c. 2. 

42 Primum opusculum, quasi properatum, pleniore postea 
compositione rescideram. Hanc quoque nondum exemplariis 
suffectam fraude tunc fratris, dehinc apostatae, amisi, qui forte 
descripserat quaedam mendosissime, et exhibuit frequentise, 
Emendationis necessitas facta est, &c. L. i. c. 1. 



481 

the latter a copy was obtained by a person 
who, having afterwards embraced the opinions 
of Marcion, published it in a very inaccu- 
rate form. Our author was in consequence 
obliged in self-defence to compose the five 
books, of which we shall now proceed to give 
an account. 

After 43 an Exordium — in which he abuses 
not only Marcion but also the Pontus Euxi- 
nus, because that heretic happened to be 
born upon its shores — Tertullian 44 proceeds to 
say that Marcion held the doctrine of two 
Gods, the one the author of evil, who cre- 
ated the world; the other a deity of pure 
benevolence, who was unknown to mankind 
until revealed by Christ. In 45 confutation of 
this doctrine, Tertullian first observes, that in 
the definition of God are comprised the ideas 
of Supreme power, Eternal duration, and Self- 
existence. " The unity of the Deity is a ne- 

43 c. 1. 

44 Tertullian supposes Marcion to have adopted this notion 
of a God of pure benevolence from the Stoics. Inde Mar- 
cionis Deus melior, de tranquillitate, a Stoicis venerat. De 
Praescriptionibus Haereticorum, c. 7. 

45 c. 3. Quantum humana conditio de Deo definire potest, 
id definio quod et omnium conscientia agnoscet, Deum sum- 
mum esse magnum, in aeternitate constitutum, innatum, in- 
fectum, sine initio, sine fine. 

Hh 



482 

cessary consequence from this definition, since 
the supposition of two Supreme Beings in- 
volves a contradiction in terms. Nor 46 can 
this conclusion be evaded by a reference to 
worldly monarchs, who are as numerous as 
the kingdoms into which the earth is divided, 
each being supreme in his own dominions. 
We cannot thus argue from man to God. 
Two Deities, in every respect equal, are in 
fact only one Deity :— 47 nor, if you introduce 
two, can any satisfactory reason be assigned 
why you may not, with Valentinus, introduce 
thirty. 48 Should Marcion reply that he does 
not assert the perfect equality of his two 
Deities, he would by that very reply give 
up the point in dispute. He would admit 
that the inferior of the two is not strictly 
entitled to the name of God, since he does 
not possess the attributes of the Godhead ; and 
that the name is applied to him only in the 
subordinate sense, in which we find it occa- 
sionally used in Scripture." 

" How 48 absurd," proceeds Tertullian, ad- 
dressing the Marcionites, " is the notion that, 

46 c. 4. Tertullian ought rather to have contended that the 
illustration strengthened his argument. In each kingdom there 
is only one Supreme Power ; but the universe is God's king- 
dom; there is, therefore, only one Supreme Power in the 
universe. 47 c. 5. ** cc. 6, 7- 



483 

during the whole interval between the crea- 
tion and the coming of Christ, the Supreme 
Being should have remained utterly unknown ; 
while the inferior Deity, the Demiurge, re- 
ceived the undivided homage of mankind! 
49 It would surely be more reasonable to assign 
the superiority to that Being who had mani- 
fested his power in the works of Creation, 
than to him who had not even afforded any 
evidence of his existence. But 50 in order to 
evade the force of this argument, you affect 
to despise the world in which you live; and 
notwithstanding the innumerable instances of 
skill and contrivance which it exhibits on 
every side, you represent it as altogether un- 
worthy to be regarded as the work of the 
Supreme Being. Yet Christ, whom you sup- 
pose to have been sent to deliver man from 
the dominion of the Demiurge, has been con- 
tent to allow the use of the elements and 
productions of this vile world, even in the 
Sacraments which he has instituted — of water, 
and oil, and milk, and honey in Baptism, 
and of bread in the Eucharist. Nay you 
yourselves also, with unaccountable inconsist- 
ency, have recourse to them for susten- 
ance and enjoyment. How 51 moreover do you 

49 cc. 9, 10, 11, 32. 50 cc. 13, 14. 

51 c. 15. 

hh2 



484 

account for the fact that, notwithstanding two 
hundred years have elapsed since the birth of 
Christ, the old world — the work of the De- 
miurge — still continues to subsist; and has not 
been superseded by a new creation proceed- 
ing from the Supreme Being, whom you sup- 
pose to have been revealed in Christ?" Ter- 
tullian here states incidentally that, 52 accord- 
ing to Marcion, the world was created by the 
Demiurge out of pre-existent matter. 

In answer to our author's last question, 
53 the Marcionites appear to have affirmed that, 
as the Supreme Being was invisible, so also 
were his works; and that the deliverance of 
man from the dominion of the Demiurge was 
an incontestable manifestation of his power. 
54 "Why then," rejoins Tertullian, "was the 
deliverance so long delayed? Why was man 
left, during the whole interval between the 
creation and Christ's advent, under the power 
of a malignant deity? 55 And in what man- 
ner was the Supreme Deity at last revealed? 
We admit two modes of arriving at the 
knowledge of God — by his works, and by 

52 Sed ex materia et ille fuisse debebit, eadem ratione 
occurrente illi quoque Deo, quae opponeretur Creatori, ut 
aeque Deo. Compare L. v. c. 19- 

63 c. 16. 54 c. 17. 55 c. 18. 



485 

express revelation. But the Supreme Deity, 
could not be known by his works; inasmuch 
as the visible world in which we live was 
not made by him, but by the Demiurge. 
You 56 will, therefore, answer, that he was 
made known by express revelation: "in the 
fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, Christ 
Jesus, a Spirit of health (Spiritus salutaris), 
condescended to come down from heaven.' 
How then happened it that the purpose of 
his coming was still kept secret from mankind ? 
that the full disclosure of the truth was re- 
served 57 till the reign of Antoninus Pius, when 
Marcion first began to teach that the God 
revealed by Christ was a different God from 
the Creator ; and that the Law and the Gos- 
pel were at variance with each other?" 

Marcion 58 appears to have appealed, in 
confirmation of his opinions, to the dispute 
between St. Paul and St. Peter, respecting the 
observance of the Ceremonial Law; and to 
have argued that the part then taken by the 
former, in denying the necessity of any such 
observance, implied a conviction in his mind 
that there was an opposition between the Law 

56 c. 19. 

57 Tertullian places an interval of 115 years and 6i 
months between Tiberius and Antoninus Pius. 

58 c. 20. 



486 

and the Gospel. To this argument Tertullian 
answers, that the inference is incorrect; since 
in the Old Testament, which according to 
Marcion was a revelation from the Demiurge, 
the cessation of the Ceremonial Law, and the 
introduction of a more spiritual system, are 
clearly predicted. "But," 59 he adds, "if St. 
Paul had known that Christ came for the pur- 
pose of revealing a God distinct from the Cre- 
ator, that fact alone would have been deci- 
sive as to the abolition of the Ceremonial 
Law; and he would have spared himself the 
unnecessary trouble of proving that it was 
no longer obligatory. The real difficulty with 
which the Apostle had to contend arose from 
the fact, that the Law and the Gospel pro- 
ceeded from the same God ; since it thence 
became necessary to explain why observances, 
which God had himself enjoined under the 
former, were no longer to be deemed obli- 
gatory under the latter." — Our author 60 then 
urges the agreement of all the Churches, 
which traced their descent from the Apostles, 
in the belief that Christ was sent by the 
Creator of this world, as a proof of the truth 
of that belief. 



c. 21. See Chap. V. p. 295. 
See Chap. V. p. 293. 



487 

Tertullian 61 lastly contends that Marcion's 
system does not even accomplish the main 
object which its author had in view — it does 
not establish the pure benevolence of his 
supposed Supreme Being. "For how," he 
asks, "can the goodness of that Being be re- 
conciled with the supposition that a malignant 
Deity was so long permitted to hold the 
universe in subjection? Goodness moreover 
loses its character, if it is not guided by 
reason and justice: but it was neither reason- 
able nor just in Marcion's Supreme God to 
invade as it were the territory of the Crea- 
tor, and to deprive him of the allegiance of 
man-r-his creature and subject. At best, the 
goodness of Marcion's God is imperfect: — it 
neither saves the whole human race, nor even 
a single individual, fully and completely ; since, 
according to Marcion, the soul only is saved, 
while the body is destroyed. Yet Marcion 
would persuade us that his Supreme Deity 
is a Deity of pure benevolence and goodness ; 
who neither judges, nor condemns, nor pu- 
nishes — but is in every respect similar to the 
listless and indolent gods of Epicurus. Does 
not then the very term goodness imply an 
abhorrence of evil? and what are we to think 
of a goodness which either does not forbid 

61 c. 22. ad finem. 



488 

the commission of evil, or overlooks it when 
committed ? Such doctrines proclaim impunity 
to every species of profligacy and crime; yet 
with strange inconsistency 62 the Marcionites 
profess to believe that evil-doers will finally 
be punished." While, however, Tertullian as- 
serts that the doctrines of Marcion lead by 
necessary consequence to the encouragement 
of vice, he does not appear to charge the 
Marcionites with actual immorality. 

The foregoing sketch of the first Book 
against Marcion, will give the reader an insight 
into the nature of the controversy, and the 
mode in which Tertullian conducted it. With 
respect to the remaining four Books, we shall 
content ourselves with merely stating the sub- 
jects discussed in each. We have seen that 
the object of the first Book was to expose 
the absurdity of maintaining that there is a 

62 Their notion seems to have been that bad men would not 
be punished by the supreme God — for perfect goodness cannot 
punish — but would be rejected by him ; and being thus re- 
jected, would become the prey of the fire of the Creator. 
Multo adhuc vanius, quum interrogate "quid fiat peccatori 
cuique die illo," respondent, " abjici ilium quasi ab oculis." 
Nonne et hoc judicio agitur ? judicatur enim abjiciendus, 
et utique judicio damnationis : nisi in salutem abjiciatur pecca- 
tor, ut et hoc Deo optimo competat, c. 27- Again, in c. 28. 
Exitus autem illi abjecto quis? ab igne, inquiunt, Creatoris 
deprehendetur. 



489 

Supreme Deity distinct from the Creator of 
the world. That of the second is to expose 
the futility of the reasonings by which Mar- 
cion endeavoured to prove, that the Creator 
of the world was not the Supreme Deity. 
It has been already observed, that Marcion's 
errors originated in a desire to reconcile the 
existence of evil, both in the natural and 
moral world, with the goodness of God. 
Whatever exists, exists, if not by the appoint- 
ment, at least by the permission of God; and 
a God of infinite power and goodness would 
not permit the existence of evil. Marcion 
could devise no better mode of solving this 
difficulty than by supposing the existence of 
two Deities — one the Creator of the world — 
the other the Supreme God — a God of pure and 
absolute benevolence. Tertullian, on the con- 
trary endeavours to shew, in the second Book, 
that the appearances of evil in the world are 
not inconsistent with the perfect goodness of its 
Author. He 63 expatiates upon the folly and 
presumption of which a blind, imperfect being, 
like man, is guilty, in venturing to canvass 
the Divine dispensations. He 64 appeals to the 
proofs of the Divine goodness exhibited in the 
material world, in the creation of man, and 
in the law which was given to Adam ; the 

65 c. 2. 64 cc. 3, 4. 



490 

superiority of man to all other animals 
being evinced by the very circumstance that 
a law was given him, which he possessed the 
power either of obeying or disobeying. To the 
common argument, that the fall of Adam im- 
plied a defect either in the goodness, power, 
or prescience of God, 65 Tertullian replies, 
that, possessing as we do, clear and decisive 
evidences of the exercise of those attributes, we 
must not allow our faith to be shaken by 
any speculative reasoning. God made man in 
his own image; man was consequently to be 
endowed with freedom of will : he abused that 
excellent gift, and fell. His fall, therefore, 
detracts not from the goodness of God. 
66 "But why," rejoined Marcion, "endow him 
with a gift which God must have foreseen 
that he would abuse?" "Because," Tertullian 
answered, "his likeness to his Maker consist- 
ed partly in the freedom of his will." With- 
out entering into any further detail of the 
arguments either of 67 Marcion or Tertullian, 

65 c. 5. See the observations on the tenth Article of 
our Church, in Chap. V. p. 332. Compare also L. iv. c. 41. 

m cc. 6, 1, 8. 

67 One of Marcion's arguments is that, since it is the 
soul which sins in man, and the soul derives its origin from 
the breath of God, that is, of the Creator, sin must in some 
degree be ascribed to the nature of the Creator, c. 9* quoted 
in Chap. III. note 18. 



491 

we may remark that our author is, as might 
be expected, far more successful in exposing 
the errors and inconsistencies of his opponent, 
than in solving the difficulties in which the 
question itself is involved. Not that his 
failure in the latter respect is to be attributed 
to any want of acuteness or ingenuity on his 
part; but to the nature of the enquiry, which 
must ever baffle the powers of human reason. 

Having once established that the fall of 
Adam was the consequence of the abuse of 
that free-will with which he was endowed at 
his creation, Tertullian finds no difficulty in 
proving that the evil, which was introduced 
into the world by the fall, and still conti- 
nues to exist, is in no way derogatory from 
the goodness of God. Marcion appears to 
have contended that the denunciation and in- 
fliction of punishment were inconsistent with 
perfect goodness. 68 Tertullian, on the con- 
trary, argues that justice is inseparable from 
goodness, and that the punishment of vice is 

68 Something like a fallacy appears to pervade the who]e of 
Tertullian' s reasoning on this point, arising out of the double 
meaning of the word Bonitas, which he here employs as if it 
meant goodness — that is, the combination of all those excel- 
lencies which constitute a perfect moral character ; whereas 
Marcion rather used the word to express kindness or bene- 
volence, as opposed to severity, malice, &c See c. 12. 



492 

nothing but an exercise of justice. 69 To 
reckon justice among the attributes of the 
Deity, and at the same time to affirm that 
the judgements which he brings upon men on 
account of their wickedness are at variance 
with his goodness, is as absurd as to admit on 
the one hand that the skill of the surgeon is 
beneficial to society, and on the other, to ac- 
cuse him of cruelty because he occasionally 
causes his patients to suffer pain. Nor must 
we, when we read in Scripture of the anger, 
or indignation, or jealousy of God, suppose 
that those passions exist in Him as they do 
in man ; unless we are also prepared to assert 
that He has human hands, and eyes, and feet, 
because those members are ascribed to Him 
in the Sacred Writings. 70 " Even the pre- 
cepts and institutions," Tertullian continues, 
"which Marcion produces from Scripture as 
proofs of the harshness and severity of the 
God who gave the Law, will, on examina- 
tion, be found to tend directly to the benefit 
of man. Thus 71 the Lex Talionis was a law 
adapted to the character of the Jewish peo- 
ple, and instituted for the purpose of repress- 
ing violence and injustice. The prohibition 
of certain kinds of food was designed to in- 

69 c. 19. Compare cle Pudicitia, c. 2. 

70 cc. 17, 18, 19. 71 Compare, L. iv. c. 16. 



493 

culcate self-restraint, and thereby to preserve 
men from trie evil consequences of excess. 
The sacrifices and other burthensome observ- 
ances of the Ceremonial Law, independently 
of their typical and prophetic meaning, an- 
swered the immediate purpose of preventing 
the Jews from being seduced into idolatry, by 
the splendid rites of their Heathen neigh- 
bours." 

One 72 of the passages of Scripture urged 
by the Marcionites was that in which God 
commands the Israelites, previously to their 
departure from Egypt, to borrow gold and 
silver of the Egyptians, This Marcion term- 
ed a fraudulent command; and denounced it 
as inconsistent with every idea of goodness. 
The mode in which Tertullian accounts for it 
is, that the Egyptians were greatly indebted 
to the Israelites; and that the gold and silver 
which the latter obtained, constituted a very 
inadequate compensation for the toil and la- 
bour of the many years during which they 
had been detained in servitude. The 15 Mar- 

72 c. 20. Compare L. iv. c. 24. Philo Judaeus de Mose. 
Tom. ii. p. 103. Ed. Mangey. 

73 c. 21. Tertullian's words are, jubentis arcam circum- 
ferri per dies octo. Compare L. iv. c. 12., where Rigault, 
however, reads septem diebus ; and we find the same reading 
in the Tract adv. Judaeos, c. 4. 



494 

cionites also objected to certain contradictions 
which they pretended to discover in Scripture : 
for example, between the general command 
not to perform any manner of work on the 
sabbath, and the particular command to bear 
the ark round the walls of Jericho for seven 
successive days, one of which must necessa- 
rily have been a sabbath — between 74 the ge- 
neral command not to make any graven 
image, and the particular command to make 
the brazen serpent, &c. In 75 like manner, they 
objected to those passages, in which God 
is said to repent — for instance, of having made 
Saul king — on the ground that repentance 
necessarily implies previous error, either of 
judgement or conduct. Tertullian does not 
appear to have been aware of the true answer 
to this objection — that when we speak of the 
anger, repentance, jealousy of God, we merely 
mean to say that such effects have been pro- 
duced in the course of the Divine dispensa- 
tions, as would, if they were the results of 
human conduct, be ascribed to the operation of 
those passions ; and that we use the terms, be- 
cause the narrowness of human conceptions, and 
the imperfection of human language, furnish us 
with no better modes of expressing ourselves. 
Our 76 author notices various other inconsisten- 

74 cc. 22, 23. ' 5 c. 24. < G c. 25. ad finem. 



495 

cies which the Marcionites professed to find 
in the Scriptures ; and concludes this part of 
his subject with observing, that all the reasons 
assigned by those Heretics, for denying that the 
God who created the world was the Supreme 
God, applied with equal force to their own 
imaginary Deity. 

Having thus proved, as he thinks satis- 
factorily, that the notion of two distinct 
Deities, one the Creator of the world, the 
other Supreme, was a mere fiction, and that 
the former was indeed the one Supreme God, 
Tertullian proceeds to refute the notion that 
Jesus was not sent by the Creator. The 
mode which he adopts is, to compare the pre- 
dictions in the Old Testament with the ac- 
tions of Jesus as recorded in the New; and 
to shew that the former were exactly accom- 
plished in the latter. The necessary conclu- 
sion is, that Jesus must have been sent by the 
same Deity who spoke by the prophets 
under the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensa- 
tions, that is, by the Creator of the world. 
It can scarcely be necessary to remark that, 
in this part of the controversy with Marcion, 
our author is obliged to take precisely the 
same ground which I have already described 
him to have taken in his Treatise against the 



496 

Jews. But before, he enters upon the in- 
vestigation of particular prophecies, he makes 
some general observations which are not un- 
worthy of notice. He TT contends, for instance, 
that, unless the coming of Christ had been 
predicted, the evidence of his Divine mission 
would have been incomplete. The miracles 
which he performed were not, as Marcion 
asserted, alone sufficient to establish the point ; 
it was further necessary that previous intima- 
tions of his appearance and character should 
have been given, in order to furnish a test 
whereby to ascertain whether he was really 
the person he professed to be. The conclu- 
sion which Tertullian builds upon these pre- 
mises is, that Jesus must have been sent by 
the Creator of the world, who foretold his 
coming; and not by Marcion's supposed Su- 
preme Being, who had given no intimation 
whatever on the subject. 78 Our author then 
mentions two circumstances which ought, he 
says, always to be borne in mind by the 
reader of the Prophetic Writings — that in 
them future events are frequently spoken of 

77 L. iii. cc. 2, 3. Lardner (Tom. iv. Ed. 4to. p. 604.), 
in speaking of this part of Tertullian's work, accuses him of 
rashness in weakening a very strong, if not the strongest, 
argument for the truth of the Christian religion ; but Lardner's 
representation scarcely does justice to our author's reasoning 
on the subject. See Chap. II. note 79- 78 c. 5. 



497 

as if they had already happened; and that, as 
the language of prophecy is frequently figu- 
rative, men may be led into great errors by 
affixing to it too literal a meaning. 

His 79 next remark is, that the Marcionites, 
although in one respect they made common 
cause with the Jews — namely, by denying that 
the prophecies of the Old Testament were ac- 
complished in Jesus of Nazareth — were on all 
other points directly opposed to them. For the 
Jews alleged the supposed disagreement be- 
tween the prophecies respecting the Messiah 
and the history of Jesus, as a reason for re- 
jecting the pretensions of the latter; whereas 
the Marcionites alleged it as a reason for 
asserting that Jesus was sent by the Supreme 
God — not by the God of the Old Testament. 
80 Tertullian then proceeds almost in the same 
words which he has used in his Treatise against 
the Jews, to shew that they, as well as the 
Marcionites, had been betrayed into their 
error by not distinguishing between the two 
advents of Christ — the one in humiliation, the 
other in glory. He 81 dwells at some length 
on the absurd consequences which necessarily 
flow from the notion of the Marcionites, that 
the body of Christ was a mere phantasm ; 

79 c. 6. 8 ° c . 7- S1 cc. 8, 9, 10. 

Ii 



498 

and says, that the title of Anti-Christ might 
with greater propriety be applied to them, 
than to the Heretics mentioned by St. John, 
who denied that Christ had come in the flesh. 
To the latter it appeared incredible that God 
should be made flesh; the former further de- 
nied that God was the Creator of man or of 
the flesh. 82 We learn incidentally that the 
Marcionites denied the reality of Christ's 
flesh, because they felt that, if they admitted 
it, they should also be compelled to admit 
the reality of his birth, and consequently his 
connexion with the Demiurge, the author of 
the human body or flesh. The remainder of 
the third Book consists principally of refer- 
ences to the same passages in the Old Tes- 
tament, which were produced in the Treatise 
against the Jews, in order to prove that Jesus 
was the Messiah predicted by the prophets.— 
We have 83 already noticed the inference de- 
duced by Semler from this resemblance be- 
tween the two Treatises, and assigned what 
seemed to us satisfactory reasons for thinking 
the inference unsound. 

Marcion 84 appears to have composed a 

82 c. 11. Compare L. iv. c. lp,. De Carne Christ^ cc. 1. 2, 
3, 5. ffl Chap. I. p. 87. 

84 L. iv. c. 1. This work seems to have been placed by 

Marcion 



499 

work to which he gave the title of Anti- 
theses, because in it he had set, as it were 
in opposition to each other, passages from the 
Old and New Testaments; intending his read- 
ers to infer, from the apparent disagreement 
between them, that the Law and the Gospel 
did not proceed from the same author. The 
object of Tertullian's fourth Book is to expose 
the weakness of this attempt. He admits that, 
as all previous dispensations were only pre- 
paratory to the Christian, and were designed 
to apply to mankind when placed under very 
different circumstances, the Law and the Gos- 
pel could not but differ in some respects from 
each other. But he contends that this differ- 
ence had been clearly pointed out by the 
prophets; and was, therefore, an argument 
that the Creator, who inspired the prophets 
and gave the Law, gave the Gospel also. As 
the genuine Gospels did not suit Marcion's 
purpose, he 85 compiled a Gospel for himself, 
out of that of St. Luke; which he appears to 

Marcion in the hands of his followers, for the purpose of 
instructing them in the principles of his system. Compare 
L. i. c. 19. L. ii. cc. 28, 29. L. iv. cc. 4. 6, 

85 cc. 2, 5. Marcion does not appear to have called it 
St. Luke's Gospel. He cut out from it such passages as he 
conceived to militate against his own opinions; such as the 
History of the Temptation, L. v. c. 6. See de Carne Christi, 
c. 7- In speaking of Marcion's Gospel, Tertullian calls it 
Evangelium vestrum, L. iii. cap. ult. Evangelium ejus, L. iv. 

I I 2 c. 1. 



500 

have selected, because that Evangelist was sup- 
posed to have written from the preaching and 
under the direction of St. Paul, who had re- 
proved St. Peter for departing from the truth 
of the Gospel. The conclusion which Marcion 
meant to draw from this circumstance was that, 
in order to discover the genuine doctrines of 
Christianity, recourse must be had to St. Paul, 
in preference to the other Apostles. This con- 
clusion our author overthrows by observing, that 
St. Paul appears, from the Epistle to the Gala- 
tians, to have gone up to Jerusalem for the 
very purpose of ascertaining whether the doc- 
trines which he preached coincided with those 
preached by Peter, and James, and John. 
"All 86 the Apostles," continues Tertullian, 
"were equally commissioned by Christ to 
preach the Gospel; all, therefore, preached the 
genuine doctrine. Instead of setting the autho- 
rity of St. Paul above that of the rest, Mar- 
cion ought rather to contend that the Gos- 
pels, which the orthodox use, have been 
adulterated, and that his alone contains the 
truth." With 87 respect to the Gospel of St. 

c. 1. See also L. iv. c. 3. L. v. c. 16. sub fine. On the sub- 
ject of Marcion's Gospel, the reader will find some valuable 
remarks in the Introduction to Dr. Schleiermacher's work to 
which we have already referred. 

86 c. 3. 87 cc. 4, 5. 



501 

Luke, Marcion contended that it had been 
adulterated by those Judaising Christians who 
were anxious to establish a connexion between 
the Law and the Gospel; and that he had 
restored it to its original integrity. Tertul- 
lian here enters into that discussion, respect- 
ing the mode of ascertaining the 88 genuineness 
of the Sacred Scriptures, to which we referred 
in our observations on the sixth Article of 
our Church. 

He 89 next proceeds to state the point ac- 
tually in controversy, between the Orthodox 
and the Marcionites, respecting Christ. Ac- 
cording to the latter, the Christ predicted in 
the Old Testament had not yet appeared ; 
but was to come at some future period, to re- 
store the Jews to their native land and to 
their ancient temporal prosperity: whereas the 
Christ, whose actions are recorded in the New 
Testament, was sent by the Supreme God to 
accomplish the salvation of the whole human 
race. " It would follow," proceeds Tertullian, 

88 See Chap. V. p. 308. 

89 Compare L. iii. c. 21. Nam etsi putes Creatoris quidem 
terrenas promissiones fuisse, Christi vero ccelestes, L. iv. c. 14. 
c 35. sub fine. L. iii. c. 24. sub initio, quoted in Chap. V. 
note 4. ; whence it appears that, according to Marcion, the 
Jews were after death to pass to a state of enjoyment in 
the bosom of Abraham, L. iv. c. 34. quoted in Chap. V. note 11. 



502 

"from this statement, that there ought to be 
no resemblance, either in character or in the 
transactions of their lives, between the Christ 
of the Old and the Christ of the New Testa- 
ment. How then happens it that the latter 
has carried on the dispensations of the God 
of the Old Testament — has fulfilled His pro- 
phecies — has realised His promises — has con- 
firmed His law — has enforced and perfected 
the rule of life set forth by him?" It would 
be a tedious and not very edifying task to 
follow our author through all the quotations 
from Scripture, by which he endeavours to 
establish the exact correspondence of the ac- 
tions and sayings of Christ, with those ascribed 
to the promised Messiah by the ancient pro- 
phets. It will be sufficient to produce a few 
examples of the contradictions which Marcion 
pretended to discover between the Old and 
New Testaments, and of the mode in which 
Tertullian accounted for them. 

Marcion 90 contended, for instance, that the 
Lex Talionis, established by Moses, was directly 
at variance with our Saviour's precept, that 
we should offer our left cheek to him who 
smites us on the right. Tertullian replies that, 
although the Lex Talionis was suited to the 
90 c. 16. See p, 492. 



503 

temper and moral condition of the Israelites, 
and at first instituted for the purpose of re- 
pressing violence, yet in the prophetic writ- 
ings we find frequent exhortations to patience 
under injuries. Those exhortations were in- 
serted, in order to prepare the minds of men 
for that prohibition of all acts of retaliation 
and even of angry and revengeful feelings, 
which the Messiah, one part of whose office 
would be to perfect the Law, would introduce 
under the Gospel. 

Another 91 alleged instance of inconsistency 
was, that Moses voluntarily interfered to put 
an end to the quarrel between the two Is- 
raelites ; whereas Christ refused to interfere 
between the two brethren, one of whom ap- 
pealed to him respecting the division of an 
inheritance. In this case Tertullian has recourse 
to a most unsatisfactory solution. He says that 
Christ's refusal was meant to convey a severe 
reproof of the applicant; by insinuating that, 
if he were to interfere, he should probably meet 
with the same ungrateful treatment which 
Moses experienced from his countryman. 

A 92 third instance of contradiction urged 
by Marcion was, that, whereas Moses permitted 

91 c. 28. 92 c. 34,. 



504 

divorce, Christ prohibited it in every case, ex- 
cepting that of adultery. Tertullian answers, 
that Christ had himself furnished a solution of 
this apparent contradiction, when he said, that 
from the beginning it was not so, and that 
Moses had granted the permission to the Jews 
on account of the hardness of their hearts. He, 
therefore, who came to take away their stony 
heart and to give them a heart of flesh, natu- 
rally curtailed the former licence, and restricted 
divorce to the single case of adultery. — Ter- 
tullian concludes the fourth Book with assert- 
ing that he has fully redeemed the pledge 
which he gave at the commencement; having 
shewn that the doctrines and precepts of Christ 
coincided so exactly with those delivered by 
the Prophets — and that his miracles, sufferings, 
and resurrection were so clearly foretold by 
them — as to establish beyond controversy the 
fact — that their inspiration and his mission ori- 
ginated with the same God — the Creator of 
the world. 

We have 95 observed that Marcion com- 
piled his Gospel principally from that of 
St. Luke, because that Evangelist had been 
the companion of St. Paul. The reason 
of the preference thus given to the Apo- 

93 p. 500. 



505 

stle of the Gentiles was his constant and 
strenuous opposition to the Judaising Christ- 
ians, who wished to re-impose the yoke of 
the Jewish ceremonies on the necks of their 
brethren. This opposition the Marcionites 
wished to construe into a direct denial of the 
authority of the Mosaic Law. They contended 
also from St. Paul's assertion — that he received 
his appointment to the Apostolic office, not 
from man, but from Christ — that he alone 
delivered the genuine doctrines of the Gos- 
pel. The object, therefore, of Tertullian, in the 
fifth Book, is to prove, with respect to St. 
Paul's Epistles, what he had proved in the 
fourth with respect to St. Luke's Gospel — 
that, far from being at variance, they were 
in perfect unison with the writings of the Old 
Testament. He begins with 94 the Epistle to 
the Galatians ; which was written for the ex- 
press purpose of confuting the error of those 
who thought the observance of the Mosaic 
ritual necessary to salvation. Here he urges an 
argument to which we have 95 more than once 
alluded — that the labour bestowed by the Apo- 
stle was wholly superfluous, in case, as the Mar- 
cionites supposed, he had been commissioned 
to teach, that Christ was not sent by the God 
who gave the Mosaic Law. For what need 

94 c. 2. ° 5 Chap. V. p. 295. p. 486. 



506 

was there, on that supposition, to enter into 
a long discussion, for the purpose of proving 
that the Gospel had superseded the use of the 
Ceremonial Law, when the very fact, that they 
proceeded from different, or, to speak more 
accurately, from hostile Deities, accounted at 
once for the abolition of the latter ? Tertullian 
examines in like manner the 96 two Epistles to 
the Corinthians, that 97 to the Romans, which 
he states to have been grievously mutilated by 
the Marcionites, 98 the two to the Thessalonians, 
and those to the " Ephesians, 10 ° Colossians, and 
101 Philippians. The same reasons, which pre- 
vented us from entering into any minute in- 
vestigation of the quotations from the Gos- 
pels, induce us to be equally concise in our 
notice of the quotations from St. Paul's Epis- 
tles. The detail would be extremely tedious, 
and the information derived from it in no re- 
spect proportioned to the time which it would 
necessarily occupy. 

When we examine the opinions of Mar- 
cion, whether upon points of faith or practice, 
we find that they all flowed by natural 
consequence from the leading article of his 
Creed — that the world was created by a Deity 

96 c. 5—15. 97 cc 13, 14. 98 cc. 15, 16. 

99 c. 17. 10 ° c 19. 101 c. 20. 



507 

distinct from the Supreme Deity, out of pre- 
existent matter. As the flesh or body of 
man was the work of the Demiurge, it was 
held by the Marcionites in abhorrence. Hence 
their 102 assertion that Christ was neither born of 
the Virgin Mary, nor passed through the cus- 
tomary stages of infancy and boyhood, but 
103 descended at once from heaven, a full-grown 
man, in 104 appearance only, not in reality — 
hence 105 the opprobrious terms in which they 
spoke of the body, and 106 their denial of its 
resurrection — hence 107 their aversion to mar- 
riage, which they carried to such a length, 
that they refused to administer the rite of 
Baptism to a married man, or 108 to admit him 
to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, until he 
had repudiated his wife. We find in Tertul- 
lian no mention of that notion respecting an 
intermediate kind of Deity, of a mixed nature, 
neither perfectly good nor perfectly evil, which 

102 L. iv. c. 10. sub fine. 

103 L. iv. c. 7- sub in. c. 21. De Came Christi, cc. 1, J. 

104 L. i. cc. 11, 22. sub in. 24. L. ii. c. 28. L. iii. cc. 8, 
9, 10. L. iv. cc. 8, 42. De Res Carnis, c. 2. De Came Christi, 
cc. 4, 6. De Anima, c. 17. De Praescriptione Haereticorum,, 
c. 33. 

105 L. iii. c. 11. De Came Christi, c. 4. 
108 L. i. c. 24. L. iv. c. 31. L. v. c. 10. 

107 L. i. cc. 1, 24, 29- L. iv. c. 11. L. v. c. 7- Ad Uxorem, 
L. i. c. 3. 

108 L. iv. c. 34. 



508 

109 Mosheim ascribes to Marcion. no Lardner 
thinks that the distinction which Marcion 
made between his two Deities, was, that the 
one was good, the other just; but in the 
second Chapter of the first Book Tertullian 
expressly says, that Marcion conceived the 
Creator of the world to be the author of 
evil, and that he was led into that error by 
misinterpreting certain passages of Scripture. 
The other charges brought against him by 
our author are, that m he denied the freedom 
of the will ; and that he 112 rejected some, and 
mutilated or corrupted other portions of Scrip- 
ture. His followers m were charged with being 
addicted to astrology. Like other Heretical 
leaders, he 114 appears to have been attended 

109 Cent. II. Part II. Chap. V. Sect. 7- 

110 History of Heretics, Chap. X. Sect. 12. 

111 De Anima, c. 21. 

112 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 38. Adv. Marcionem, 
L. i. c. 1. Marcion necessarily rejected the whole of the 
Old Testament, as proceeding from the Demiurge. De 
Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 30. Tertullian mentions also 
his rejection of St. Matthew's Gospel, L. iv. c. 34— -of St. 
John's Gospel, de Carne Christi, c. 3 — of the Acts of the Apo- 
stles, L. v. c. 2. De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 22 — of the 
Apocalypse, L. v. c. 5 — of the two Epistles to Timothy and 
of that to Titus, L. v. cap. ult. but he appears to have 
recognised the Epistle to Philemon. The reader will find in 
Lardner a detailed account of the alterations which Mar- 
cion made in St. Luke's Gospel, and in the ten Epistles 
of St. Paul which he received. History of Heretics, Chap. X. 
Sect. 35, &c. 

113 L. i. c. 18. 114 L. v. c. 8. sub fine. 



509 

by females, who pretended to great sanctity— r 
a practice probably adopted in imitation of 
the Apostles. 

Mosheim speaks of Lucan, Severus, Blastus, 
and Apelles, as followers of Marcion, who de- 
viated in some respects from the tenets of 
their master. 115 Lucan is once mentioned by 
Tertullian as holding the opinion, that neither 
the soul nor the body would rise again, but 
a sort of third substance — an opinion which 
our author supposes him to have borrowed 
from Aristotle. The 116 name of Apelles occurs 
frequently in Tertullian's writings. He is de- 
scribed as a disciple of Marcion, who endea- 
voured to improve upon his master's doc- 
trine ; and the 117 account given of him is, that, 
being unable to comply with Marcion's strict 
notions on the subject of continence, he left 
that Heretic and went to Alexandria, where 
he met with a female named Philumena, who 
performed various magical illusions by the 
assistance of an evil spirit. To this woman he 

115 De Res. Carriis, c. 2. sub fine. 

116 Hoc meminisse debuerat Apelles, Marcionis de dis- 
cipulo emendator. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 17. De Carne 
Christi, c. 6. sub in. 

117 De Prsescriptione Haereticorum, c. SO. See also cc. 6. 
10. 37. De Carne Christi, c. 24. Lardner questions the 
story of the incontinence of Apelles. History of Heretics, 
Chap. XII. Sect. 3. 



510 

attached himself, and under her instruction 
composed a work called (pavepwcreis, or Reve- 
lations. Like his master, 118 he denied the 
resurrection of the body, and at first 119 pro- 
hibited marriage. He 120 affirmed that the souls 
of men were tempted to come down from the 
super-celestial regions — the regions above the 
heavens which invest this earth — by the allure- 
ments offered to them by the fiery angel, the 
God 121 both of the Israelites and of the Gen- 
tiles ; who no sooner got them into his power 
than he surrounded them with sinful flesh. 
The 122 distinction of sexes existed in these 
souls, previously to their descent upon earth; 
and was from them communicated to the 

118 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 33. 

119 Ibid. 

120 De Anima, c. 23. De Came Christi, c. 8. De Res. 
Carnis, c. 5. 

121 Tertullian' s expression is, ab igneo Angelo, Deo Israelis 
et nostro. By the word nostro, I suppose Tertullian to 
mean that the fiery angel was not merely the God of the 
Jews, as some of the Heretics supposed with respect to 
their inferior Deity, but also of the Gentiles. But in the 
Tract de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 34. Tertullian speaks 
as if the fiery angel was the God of Israel only, Apelles 
Creatorem, Angelum nescio quem gloriosum superioris Dei, 
faceret Deum Legis et Israelis, ilium igneum amrmans. In 
c. 7. he traces this notion of a fiery angel to the philoso- 
phical tenets of Heraclitus. I conceive it rather to have 
been derived from the circumstances attending the appear- 
ance of God to Moses in the burning bush. 

122 De Anima, c. 36. 



511 

bodies in which they were clothed. 125 Apelles 
differed also from his master in admitting the 
reality of Christ's flesh, though he denied that 
Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. His 
124 notion appears to have been, that the flesh 
of Christ was not given by the fiery angel 
or god of evil, who clothed the souls which 
he seduced into these lower regions with sin- 
ful flesh; but was a substance brought down 
originally from the stars by a certain eminent 
angel, who formed the world, though he after- 
wards 125 mixed up repentance with his work. 
Christ's flesh, therefore, was real, but different 
from human flesh. In the 126 third Book against 
Marcion, our author alludes to certain Heretics, 
who maintained that the flesh, which the Angels 
assumed who are stated in Scripture to have 

123 Aut admissa carne nativitatem negare, ut Apelles disci- 
pulus et postea desertor ipsius. De Carne Christie c. 1. 

124 Nam et Philumena ilia magis persuasit Apelli caeterisqne 
desertoribus Marcionis, ex fide quidem Christum circumtulisse 
carnem, nullius tamen nativitatis, utpote de elementis earn 
mutuatum. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 11. See de Res. 
Carnis, c. 2. De Carne Christi, c. 8. 

125 Tertullian's words are, Angelum quendam inclytum 
nominant, qui mundum hunc instituerit, et instituto eo 
pcenitentiam admiscuerit. De Carne Christi, c. 8. Semler 
for admiscuerit reads admiserit. If admiscuerit is the true 
reading, I should conjecture the meaning to be, that this 
Angel either did not or could not create a perfect world; 
but introduced into it many things, which he afterwards 
wished to alter. 

12(5 c. 9. Pamelius refers to the Tract de Carne Christi, 
c. 6. 



512 

appeared in human shapes, was not human 
flesh. Pamelius supposes that the Heretics 
here alluded to were the disciples of Apelles. 
Of Severus and Blastus there is no mention 
in Tertullian's writings. 

The next Heretics in Mosheim's catalogue 
are Bardesanes and Tatian. The former is not 
even named by Tertullian : of the m latter we 
have already spoken. 

From the Oriental, Mosheim proceeds to 
what he terms the Egyptian branch of the 
Gnostics. In this branch he assigns the first 
place to Basilides; who is mentioned once, and 
only once, by our author, in the Tract de 
Resurrectione Carnis. He is there stated to 
have agreed with Marcion in denying the 
reality of Christ's flesh. Mosheim, however, 
contends that this opinion is unjustly ascribed 
to him, 128 though probably held by some of 
his followers. 

We come next to Carpocrates, who is twice 
mentioned by Tertullian, in the Treatise de 
Anima. In one 129 place he is said to have 

12 7 Chap. IV. p. 260. 

128 c. 2. Lardner also thinks that there is reason for 
doubting whether Basilides denied the reality of Christ's 
flesh. History of Heretics, Chapter II. Sect. 6. 

129 c. 23. 



513 

maintained that his own soul and the souls' 
of his followers were derived from a heavenly 
power, who looked down, as it were from 
an eminence, upon all the powers of this lower 
world. He conceived, therefore, both himself 
and them to be entirely on a level with Christ 
and the Apostles. In the 130 other place, he is 
accused of holding the doctrine of the met- 
empsychosis; on the ground that the soul must 
perform all the acts to which it w r as originally 
destined, before it can attain to a state of rest. 
In support of this notion he quoted the words 
of our Saviour, Verily thou shalt not depart 
thence, until thou hast paid the uttermost far- 
thing. Tertullian remarks incidentally, that 
Carpocrates believed nothing to be evil in itself ; 
good and evil depending entirely on opinion. 

Tertullian wrote a Treatise expressly against 
the Valentinians. He m speaks of them as a 
very numerous sect; and ascribes their popu- 
larity to the fables with which their theology 
abounded, and to the air of mystery which 
they threw around their doctrines. He i32 says 

130 c. 35. See Lardner. History of Heretics, Chap. III. 
Sect. 11. where he assigns reasons for doubting the truth 
of many of the charges against the Carpocratians. 

131 Adv. Valentinianos, c. 1. 

132 c. 4. Compare de Praescriptione Haereticorum, cc 29, 
30. 

Kk 



514 

that their founder, Valentinus, was a man of 
ability and eloquence, and flourished in the 
reign of Antoninus Pius. Being offended be- 
cause the claim of another to a vacant See 
was preferred to his own, he quitted the Church 
in disgust ; and formed a system, not indeed 
entirely new, but founded in some measure 
upon opinions previously current. Of 153 this 
system, Tertullian's Treatise is a concise ac- 
count; taken, as he admits, from the writings 
of Justin, Miltiades, Irenseus, and Proculus, 
whom he calls contemporaries of the Heresi- 
archs. It is in fact little more than a trans- 
lation of the first book of the work of Irenseus, 
against the Gnostics. The whole system is so 
replete with absurdity, that we should be dis- 
posed to pass it over without notice, were 
not the examination of it necessary to the com- 
pletion of our plan; which is, to place before 
the reader all the information, supplied by our 
author's writings, respecting the history of the 
Church in his day. 

Valentinus, 154 then, supposed a God, self- 
existent, infinite, invisible, eternal, who dwelt 
in the very highest regions, living in a state 
of imperturbable tranquillity, like the gods of 

133 cc. 5, 6. 

134 c. 7- See adv. Marcionein, L. i. c. 5. 



515 

Epicurus. To this God he gave the names 
of alwv T€\eio$ 9 Trpoap^ri, «/>x^> an( ^ with some- 
what of inconsistency, fivOos. This Deity, how- 
ever, was not alone, but had with him, or 
rather within him, another Being to whom 
the names of ewoia, %^P L ^ ai y^ were assigned. 
From the latter, who appears to have been con- 
sidered as a female, and to have been impreg- 
nated by the Sovereign Deity, sprang 135 vods, 
who was in every respect like and equal to his 
Father, and alone capable of comprehending 
his Father's greatness. He was regarded as 
the beginning or origin of all things, and even 
distinguished by the appellation of Father. 
He was also called 136 ixovoyevrjs, or only begotten ; 
notwithstanding that at the same time with 
him was born a female iEon, called aXrjOeia, or 
truth. The above four, fivOds, (nyrj, vods, and 
aXrjOeia, constituted the first Tetras or Quater- 
nion, from which the remaining iEons were 
derived. For from vovs sprang X070S and £«»}, 
the word and life ; and from them again aOpw- 
ttos and €KK\rj<ria 9 man and the Church. The 
last four, added to the first-mentioned four, 



135 In the Tract de Prsescriptione Haereticorum, c. 33. 
Tertulliaii translates the word vovs by the Latin sensus. 

136 Tertullian says that he should rather have been called 
TrpioToyevris, or first-begotten. Compare de Anima, c. 12. 

KK2 



516 

constituted the 6y$od$. 137 Again, from \6yog 
and Xuri were derived ten : — (3v66$ (a second of 
the name, unless we ought rather to read 

fivQios) and juifts, dyrjparos and cvomtk, avrocpvrjs 
and qSovrj, aKivrjTos and avyKpaais, imovoyevrjs (a se- 
cond of the name) and imaKapia. From avOpoo-n-os 
and eKKXrjo-ia were derived twelve: — 7rapdKkriTo$ 

and ttigtis, irctTpiKos and e\7rl<$, fxrjTpiKos and dya.7rrj y 
138 alvos and avvaais, €KK\r]aiacrTiK6s and (xaKapioTrjs, 
339 OeXrjTo? and o-o0m. In forming these pairs of 
JEons, it was evidently the intention of Valen- 
tinus to couple together a male and a female 
JEon; a masculine being regularly joined to 
a feminine noun. H0 Tertullian, therefore, re- 
tains the Greek nouns ; least, in translating 
them into Latin, the distinction should dis- 
appear. We have now reached the number of 
thirty JEons, which constituted what Valen- 
tinus called the TrXijpw/uia, the fullness of the 
celestial body. 

To vov$ 141 alone, among the derived iEons, 

137 c. 8. Compare Irenaeus, L. i. c. 1. In the Scorpiace, 
c. 10. we find the name afiao-navTo? among the iEons of 
Valentinus. 

138 Irenaeus has detvov^. 

139 In several instances we find (pi\r]T6$ instead of deArjrSsy 
probably by the mistake of the transcriber. 

140 c. 6. 

141 cc. 9, 10, 



517 

was imparted the full knowledge of the Su- 
preme God. He would have communicated 
it to the rest; but his mother, 0-47)7, interposed 
to prevent the communication. They, in conse- 
quence, pined with the secret desire of being 
admitted to the knowledge of the Father. This 
desire at length became so violent in o-cKpla, 
the youngest of the family of the iEons, that 
she would have been destroyed by its very 
intensity, and thus one of the members of the 
Pleroma would have been lost, had she not 
been preserved by opo$, who was sent forth 
from the Father for this very purpose, at 
the request of vovs. The various emotions, 
however, by which aocpia was agitated during 
the continuance of her desire, gave rise to new 
existences ; for to them is to be traced the 
origin of matter, of ignorance, of fear, of 
grief. The desire itself — called evOv wens, which 
the translator of Irenaeus interprets concupis- 
centia cum passione — was separated by opos 
from its parent ao(pia 9 and driven out of the 
Pleroma. To Spos, on account of the part 
which he had acted in restoring aocpia to the 
Pleroma, were given the names of nieraycoyevs, 

6po6err]$, aravpos, (or rather perhaps erravpeorf]^ 

because he had crucified the desire which 
preyed upon aacpia,) XvTpwrrjs or redeemer, and 
KapTrtcTTtis or restorer to liberty. 



518 

Having thus described the error of co^m, 
the last-born iEon, and her recovery from it, 
Valentinus 142 proceeded to say that vod$ sent 
forth another couple of iEons, Christ and the 
Holy Spirit. The office of Christ was to in- 
struct the iEons in the nature of the union 
which subsisted between the different pairs in 
the Pleroma, and in the mode of arriving 
at the comprehension of the Supreme Father. 
The office of the Holy Spirit was to render 
them, after their instruction by Christ, grateful 
to the Father, and contented with the degree 
of knowledge which they possessed. 143 Calm 
and tranquillity being thus restored to the Ple- 
roma by the exertions of Christ and the Holy 
Spirit, all the iEons, in honour of the Father, 
contributed, as it were into a common stock, 
each his most excellent gift. Out of these 
contributions was formed the brightest star and 
most perfect fruit of the Pleroma, Jesus ; — who 

Was also Called (TODTrjp, xpiorros, X0709, and 7rdvTa 9 

because All had contributed to his formation. 
Angels also were created to be his attendants ; 
but Tertullian says that he could not ascertain 
whether they were supposed to be of the same 
substance or essence with their Lord. 

So much for the interior of the Pleroma. 

142 c. 11. li3 c. 12, 



519 

144 With respect to what was without it, we 
have seen that the intense desire which agi- 
tated (Tocpia — and which Valentinus called some- 
times 6v0u/ur](7i9 9 sometimes 145 Achamoth — was 
driven from the Pleroma, into the outer regions 
of darkness; where she remained like an abor- 
tion, shapeless and imperfect. In this state 
Christ, at the suggestion of 6pos, regarded her 
with an eye of pity, and with the assistance 
of the Holy Spirit gave her a form. She re- 
tained in her new condition some savour of her 
former incorruption ; and sensible of her fall 
sought to be re-admitted to the regions of light, 
but was prevented by opo<$. In consequence of 
her disappointment, she was assailed by those 
evils which before afflicted her parent, cro<pia — 
fear, grief, and ignorance. To these was now 
added the desire of conversion to Christ who 
gave her life. From her various emotions and 
affections, arose 146 all the substances in this mate- 
rial world. From her desire of conversion, arose 

144 c. 14. 

145 Tertullianus, c. 14. hoc nomen ininterpretahile vocat, et 
mox addit, Achamoth unde, adhuc quceritur. Feuardentius vero 
recte deducit a HDpn Sapientia. Irenaeus. Ed. Grabe. p. 19. 
note 3. 

146 c. 15. The reader will observe that whatever took 
place without the Pleroma was, as it were, a copy of what 
took place within it. Thus the formation of matter, here 
described, corresponds to the formation of matter within the 
Pleroma, mentioned in cc. 9> 10. See c. 23. 



520 

every living soul, even that of the Demiurge, 
the God of mankind. From her grief and tears, 
the element of water — from her fear, the corpo- 
real elements — from her smile, which was caused 
by the recollection of having seen Christ, light. 
147 In the extremity of her distress she at length 
had recourse to prayer to Christ; who sent to 
her the Saviour Jesus, with his train of at- 
tendant angels. 148 The ecstasy, into which she 
was thrown by their appearance, caused her 
to produce three different kinds of existences — 
material, animal, and spiritual. Out l49 of the 
animal she formed the Demiurge, called also 
by the Valentinians mrjTpo7rarwp 9 and king. The 
name of Father, which is included in wTpoTraTtop, 
was applied to him in the case of animal sub- 
stances, which they placed on the right; that 
of Demiurge in the case of material substances, 
which they placed on the left ; and that of King 
indifferently, in both cases. The 15 ° Demiurge 
created this visible world. 

To 131 the devil, Valentinus gave the name 
of KocrimoKpaTwp or Munditenens, and appeared 
in some respects to place him above the Demi- 

14 7 c. 16. 148 c. 17- De Anima, c. 21. 

149 c. 18. See de Praescriptione Haereticorum, cc. 7, 34>. 
The name fxrjTpo7rar(ap was applied to him, because he was 
merely the agent of his mother in creating the visible world. 

150 c 20. I51 c. 22. 



521 

urge; because the latter was only animal, the 
former spiritual. 

The 152 Demiurge created man, not out of 
the dust of the earth, but out of some pecu- 
liar matter which he animated with his breath ; 
so that man was both material and animal. 
153 The Demiurge afterwards drew over him a 
covering of flesh. Moreover, at the time when 
the breath of life was breathed into him, 
a portion of the spiritual seed, which Acha- 
moth retained, was also communicated. To 
this spiritual seed was given the appellation 
of €KK\ri<jia 9 in allusion to the JEon so named, 
within the Pleroma. 

Corresponding 154 to the three kinds of sub- 
stances now described, there are three kinds of 
men — the carnal or material who are represented 
by Cain, the animal who are represented by Abel, 
and the spiritual who are represented by Seth — 
the first are destined to certain perdition, the 
last to salvation. The final state of the second 
is uncertain; being determined by their greater 
inclination, either on the one hand to the car- 
nal, or on the other to the spiritual. 155 They 
in whom is the spiritual seed, being assured 

152 c. 24. 15 3 c . 25. Compare de Anima, cc. 11, 23. 

154 c. 26. 155 cc> 29} 30> 



522 

of salvation, are exempt from all discipline, and 
at liberty to live and act as they please; but 
the animal man is obliged to work out his 
salvation with care and diligence. — One 156 of 
the consequences which the Valentinians de- 
rived from this triple division was, that no 
credit can be due to the testimony of the senses ; 
as they are to be referred to the animal part 
of man's nature. 

With 157 respect to Christ, the Valentinian 
doctrine was, that the Demiurge sent forth, 
protulit, from himself an animal Christ, who 
was foretold by the prophets, and passed 
through the body of the Virgin as through 
a canal — that at his Baptism the Saviour, 
who was before described as formed out of 
the most excellent qualities of all the iEons 
in the Pleroma, descended upon him in the 
shape of a dove, but quitted him when he 
was examined before Pilate — and thus that 
only the carnal and animal Christ was cruci- 
fied. It does not exactly appear whence the 
Christ of the Demiurge obtained his flesh, 
which 158 Valentinus supposed to be different 

156 De Anima, c. 18. Tertullian remarks that the Valen- 
tinians borrowed their notion from Plato. They supposed the 
five foolish virgins in the parable to mean the five senses. 

157 c. 27- 

158 De Carnc Christi, cc. I, 15. De Res. Carnis, c. 2. 



523 

from human flesh. We may here observe' 
that, in agreement with this supposition the 
Valentinians denied the resurrection of the 
body. 

At 159 the final consummation of all things, 
Achamoth — who occupied the middle space in 
the universe, immediately below the Pleroma 
and above this world — will be received into 
the Pleroma, and become the bride of the 
Saviour. The Demiurge will be transferred 
into the vacant habitation of his mother. Those 
men, in whom was only the material seed, will 
be annihilated. Those, in whom was the ani- 
mal seed, and who lived virtuous lives, will 
be carried up to the Demiurge, in the middle 
regions. Those, in whom was the spiritual 
seed, laying aside the souls which they had 
received from the Demiurge, will be taken up 
into the Pleroma, and become the brides of 
the angels who attend upon the Saviour. 

Such were the extravagant notions of Valen- 
tinus, as they are represented by Tertullian. 
We have aimed at expressing his meaning 
accurately, but are not certain that we have 
always succeeded in the attempt. We doubt 
indeed whether he himself thoroughly com- 

159 cc. 31, 32, 33. 



524 

prehended the system which he undertook to 
describe. Mosheim 160 says that some of the 
moderns have endeavoured to reconcile the 
Valentinian doctrines with reason— a more ar- 
duous or unpromising undertaking cannot well 
be conceived. The design of the Heresiarch 
doubtless was to account for the origin of 
evil; but in executing this design he appears 
to have surrendered himself entirely to the 
guidance of his fancy. His followers, using 
the same liberty, changed and added to their 
master's notions at their own discretion; so 
that, in Tertullian's day, 161 Axionicus of An- 
tioch alone adhered strictly to the doctrines 
of Valentinus. 162 Ptolemy, one of his most 
distinguished disciples, differed from him with 
respect to the names, the number, and the 
nature of the iEons. Tertullian mentions 
among his followers, 163 Colarbasus, if the read- 
ing is correct ; 164 Heracleon ; 165 Secundus ; 
166 Marcus, to whom our author gives the ap- 

160 Century II. Part II. Chap. V. Sect. 16. note. 

161 Adv. Valentinianos, c. 4. In c. 11. Tertullian says that 
the divisions among the followers of Valentinus arose chiefly 
out of their different notions respecting Christ. See de 
Praescriptione Haereticorurn, c. 42. 

162 cc. 4. 33. 103 c. 4. 164 c. 4. 

165 c. 4. and c. 38. where the system of Secundus is stated. 

166 c. 4. In the Tract de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 5. 
Marcus is said to have maintained that the human body 
was the workmanship of angels. 



525 

pellation of Magus ; 167 Theotimus, who appears, 
to have employed himself in proposing alle- 
gorical or figurative expositions of the law ; and 
168 Alexander, who urged as a reason for deny- 
ing the reality of Christ's flesh that, if he 
actually assumed human flesh, he must have 
assumed sinful flesh; whereas St. Paul says, 
that Christ abolished sin in the flesh. Ter- 
tullian 169 mentions certain psalms or hymns of 
Valentinus. He 17 ° says also that Valentinus did 
not, like Marcion, mutilate the Scriptures, but 
was content to pervert their meaning. In our 
account of the 171 Scorpiace, we stated the 
grounds on which the Valentinians denied that 
Christians were under any obligation to en- 
counter martyrdom. One of them, named 
172 Prodicus, appears to have taken the lead in 
asserting this doctrine. 

Of the more obscure Gnostic sects enu- 
merated by Mosheim — the Adamites, Canutes, 
Abelites, Sethites, Florinians, Ophites — Ter- 

167 c 4. Multum circa imagines Legis Theotimus operatus 
est. 

168 De Carne Christi, c. 16. See Chap. V. note 26. 

169 De Carne Christi, cc. 17. 20. 

170 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 38. 

171 Chap. I. p. 58. Chap. II. p. 151. 

172 Scorpiace, cap. ult. Prodicus is mentioned again in 
the Tract against Praxeas, c, 3. sub fine. 



526 

tullian 173 mentions only the Cainites; who ac- 
cording to him were Nicolaitans under another 
name. It 174 has been already remarked that the 
female, against whom the Tract de Baptismo 
was composed, was said to belong to this sect. 

From the Oriental Heresies, Mosheim pro- 
ceeds to those which he allows to be of Gre- 
cian origin; and which, according to him, 
principally owed their rise to the attempt to 
explain the Christian doctrines of the Trinity 
and Incarnation, upon the principles of the 
Grecian philosophy. To this class of Here- 
sies he refers the tenets of Praxeas, Artemon, 
and Theodotus. Of Artemon and Theodotus, 
we find no notice in Tertullian's writings. 
Against Praxeas he wrote a Treatise, from 
which we collect, not only the opinions of 
that Heretic, but also his own, upon the two 
fundamental articles of Christian faith just 
mentioned. The reader will remember that the 
consideration of them was deferred till we ar- 
rived at this division of our work; and their 
paramount importance must be our excuse for 
entering into a more detailed account of the 
Treatise against Praxeas, than has been given 
of the other Tracts against the Heretics. 

173 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 33. 

174 Chap. I. note 28. 



527 

Praxeas, according to our 175 author, was. 
a man of a restless temper, who had very 
recently come from Asia, and by false repre- 
sentations prevailed upon the Bishop of Home 
to recal a letter, in which he had recognised 
the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca, and Max- 
imilla, and had recommended the Asiatic 
Churches to continue in communion with 
them. This circumstance doubtless contributed, 
as much as the heretical tenets of Praxeas, 
to excite our author's indignation against him. 
When, however, those tenets found their way 
to Carthage, they were successfully combated 
and to all appearance extirpated by Tertullian 
himself; the person who originally taught them 
having delivered to the Church a written re- 
cantation. But after a time the Heresy again 
displayed itself ; and called forth, from the pen 
of Tertullian, the Treatise which we are now 
to consider. 

The 176 error of Praxeas appears to have 
originated in anxiety to maintain the unity 
of God ; which, 177 he thought, could only be 

175 c. 1. Ipsa novellitas Praxeae hesterni, c. 2. 

176 Unicum dominum vindicate omnipotentem, mundi con- 
ditorem, ut de unico Haeresim faciat. c. 1. 

177 Dum unicum Deum non alias putat credendum, quam 
si ipsum eundemque et Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum 
dicat, c. 2. Quum eundem Patrem et Filium et Spiritum 
contendunt, ad versus ohovop.iav Monarchies adulantes., c. 9- 



528 

done by saying that the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost were one and the same. He con- 
tended, therefore, according to Tertullian, that 
178 the Father himself descended into the Virgin, 
was born of her, suffered, and was in a word 
Jesus Christ. Praxeas, however, does not ap- 
pear to have admitted the correctness of this 
account of his doctrine ; but to have declared 
his opinion to be — 179 that the Father did not 
suffer in the Son, but sympathised (compassus 
est) with the Son. 

Tertullian enters upon the refutation of 

178 Ipsum dicit Patrem descendisse in virginem, ipsum 
ex ea natum, ipsum passum; denique ipsum esse Jesum 
Christum, c. 1. 

179 Ergo nee compassus est Pater Filio ; sic enim, direc- 
tam blasphemiam in Patrem veriti, diminui earn hoc modo 
sperant, concedentes jam Patrem et Filium duos esse, si films 
quidem patitur; Pater vero compatitur, c. 29* From this 
passage Lardner contends that Praxeas was not a Patripassian ; 
and that Tertullian was mistaken in his view of that Heretic's 
doctrines. According to Lardner, who follows Beausobre, 
Praxeas distinguished between the Word and the Son of 
God; deeming the former only an attribute or faculty of 
the Divine Nature, the communication of which to the man 
Jesus Christ, through his conception by the Holy Spirits 
rendered him the Son of God. Credibility of Gospel His- 
tory, c. 41. History of Heretics, c. 20. Sect. 7- But Wilson, 
in his " Illustration, &c." pp. 312, 415. has satisfactorily shown 
that the earliest error on the subject of Christ's nature was that 
of those who denied, not his Divinity, but his humanity ; and 
that the error of Praxeas consisted in denying his distinct 
personality. Wilson compares Praxeas and his followers with 
the Swedenborgians. 



529 

the doctrines of Praxeas by setting forth his' 
own creed. 180 " We believe," he says, " in 
one God, but under the following dispensa- 
tion or oeconomy — that there is also a Son 
of God, his Word, who 181 proceeded from 
him ; by whom all things were made, and 
without whom nothing was made; who was 
sent by him into the Virgin, and was born 
of her; being both man and God, the Son 
of man and the Son of God, and called 
Jesus Christ; who suffered, died, and was 
buried, according to the Scriptures ; and 
was 182 raised again by the Father; and was 
taken up into heaven, there to sit at the 
right hand of the Father, and thence to come 
to judge the quick and the dead ; who sent 
from heaven, 185 from his father, according to 
his promise, the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, 
the Sanctifier of the Faith of all, who believe 
in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Such, 
according to Tertullian, was the faith handed 

180 c. 2. This passage is quoted in Chap. V. note 155. 

181 Qui ex ipso processerit. In c. 6. Tertullian, speaking 
of the generation of the Son, uses the word protulit. See also 
c. 7. Haec est nativitas perfecta Sermonis, dum ex Deo proce- 
dit. And c. 19- In quo principio prolatus a Patre est. 

182 Here, as in the Epistle to the Galatians i. 1. the 
raising of Christ is attributed to the Father. See Pearson, 
Article V. p. 256. 

183 In c. 4. the Holy Ghost is said to be from the Father, 
through the Son. 

Ll 



530 

down in the Church, from the first preaching 
of the Gospel ; a faith, which, far from destroy- 
ing the unity, as Praxeas supposed, is perfectly 
consistent with it. "For though the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost are three, they are 
three, not in 184 condition, but in degree; not 
in substance, but in form ; not in power, but in 
species; being of one substance, one condition 
and one power, because there is one God, from 
whom those degrees, forms, and species, in 
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, 
are derived." 



« The 185 simple, indeed," Tertullian proceeds, 
" not to call them unwise and unlearned, who 

184 Tres autem, non statu, sed gradu ; nee substantia, sed 
forma ; nee potestate, sed specie ; unius autem substantia, et 
unius status, et unius potestatis; quia unus Deus, ex quo et 
gradus isti et forma? et species, in nomine Patris et Filii et 
Spiritus Sancti, deputantur. c 2. Compare c. 19« Rati- 
onem reddidimus qua Dii non duo dicantur, nee Domini, sed 
qua Pater et Filius, duo : et hoc non ex separatione substantia?, 
sed ex dispositione, quum individuum et inseparatum Filium 
a Patre pronuntiamus ; nee statu, sed gradu alium ; qui etsi 
Deus dicatur quando nominatur singularis, non ideo duos 
Deos faciat, sed unum ; hoc ipso quod et Deus ex unitate 
Patris vocari habeat. See also cc. 9, 21. 

185 Tertullian's words are : Simplices enim quique, ne 
dixerim imprudentes et idiotae, qua? major semper credentium 
pars est, &c. In his controversy with Dr. Priestley, Bishop 
Horsley translated the word idiotce by the English word idiots, 
for which translation he was severely reprehended by Dr. 
Priestley. The Bishop afterwards explained that by the 

word 



531 

always constitute the majority of believers,' 
are startled at the doctrine of the Trinity ; 
thinking that it divides the Unity. We, 
they say, maintain the monarchy, or sole 
government of God. But what is the mean- 
ing of the word monarchy ? Sole empire : — 

word idiot he did not mean a person labouring under a 
constitutional defect of the faculty of reason; but a dull,, 
stupid, ignorant person- — a dunce or booby. Probably be- 
tween the publication of his Letters and of his Supple- 
mental Disquisitions, Bentley's animadversions upon Collins 
for translating ab idiotis Evangelistis, by idiot Evangelists, had 
occurred to his recollection. Remarks on Free-thinking, 
c. 33. — Wilson, p. 444. thus translates the passage : <c For 
all the men of simplicity (alluding probably to their affectation 
of simplicity of doctrine, as well as to their ignorance), not 
to call them unwise and unlearned, who always form the ma- 
jority of Christians." We doubt whether the word Simplices 
was meant to convey the allusion which Wilson supposes. In 
the Tract against the Valentinians, c. 2. Tertullian says that 
they called the orthodox Simplices, and themselves Sapien- 
tes. See also c. 3. Adv. Judaeos, c. 9. vel convertere simplices 
quosque gestitis. Scorpiace, c 1. Nam quod sciunt multos 
simplices ac rudes, where the word manifestly means, simple- 
minded, uninstructed. But that Wilson has rightly trans- 
lated the word idiotce will appear from a comparison of the 
following passages. Male accepit idiotes quisque, c. 9- Nee 
tantus ego sum ut vos alloquar; veruntamen et gladiatores 
perfectissimos non tantum magistri et praepositi sui, sed etiam 
idiotae et supervacue quique abhortantur de longinquo, ut 
saepe de ipso populo dictata suggesta profuerint. Ad Mar- 
tyres, c. 1. Sed est hoc solenne perversis et idiotis (et Rigault) 
haereticis, jam et Psychicis universis. De Pudicitia, c. 16. sub 
fine. Te simplicem et rudem et impolitam et idioticam com- 
pello. De Testimonio Animae, c. 1. The word imperitus 
is used in nearly the same sense ; Secundum majorem vim im- 
peritorum — apud gloriosissimam scilicet multitudinem Psychi- 
orum. De Jejuniis, c. 11. 

LL2 



532 

and is it not perfectly consistent with single- 
ness of rule that the ruler should have a 

186 Son, or that he should administer the 
government through the agency of whom he 
will? When a Father associates his Son with 
himself in the empire, is the unity of the 
imperial power thereby destroyed? The Va- 
lentinians, it is true, destroy the monarchy 
of God, because they introduce other deities, 
who are wholly at variance with him. The 

187 Son is of the substance of the Father ; 
he does nothing but by the will of the 
Father; he derives all his power from the 
Father, and will finally, 188 as we learn from 
St. Paul, restore it to the Father. How 
then can the doctrine of the Trinity, when 
thus explained, be deemed inconsistent with 
the sole government of God? The same 
reasoning is applicable in the case of the 
Holy Spirit."— The very circumstance, that 
the Scriptures speak of one who delivers 
power, and of another to whom it is delivered, 
affords in Tertullian's estimation convincing 
evidence of a distinction of persons in the 



186 FaciljUis de Filio quam de Patre haesitabatur. De Prae- 
scriptione Haereticorum, c. 34. Semler insinuates that this 
part of Tertullian's reasoning verges towards Arianism. 

18 7 c 4. 

188 1 Cor. xv. 28. 



533 

unity of • the divine nature; yet 189 expressions' 
sometimes fall from him which seem at first 
sight to imply, that the distinction only sub- 
sists for the purpose of carrying on the Divine 
administration under the Gospel. 

Having removed this popular objection to 
the Doctrine of the Trinity, Tertullian 190 turns 
to the immediate question between himself 
and Praxeas ; and says, that his object will be 
to enquire, whether there is a Son — who He 
is — and how He exists. In following Tertul- 
lian through his investigation of the first of 
these points, we must bear in mind the double 
sense of the word \6yo$ — which comprehends 
ratio and sermo, reason and speech. — "Before 
all things, God was alone, being his own 
world, and place, and universe; alone, be- 
cause nothing existed without or beyond him. 
191 Yet even then he was not alone ; for he 
had with him, within himself, his Reason, 
called by the Greeks X0709, by the Latins 

189 Videmus, igitur, non obesse monarchic F ilium, etsi 
hodie apud Filium est ; quia et in suo statii est apud Filium, 
et cum suo statu restituetur Patri a Filio ; ita earn nemo hoc 
nomine destruet, si Filium admittat, cui et traditam earn 
a Patre, et a quo quandoque restituendam Patri constat, c. 4. 
Compare cc. 13, 16. 

190 c. 5. 

191 Tertullian's words are, Caeterum ne tunc quidem solus; 
habebat enim secum, quam habebat in semetipso, Rationem 

suam 



534 

Sermo, though the word Ratio would be the 
more accurate translation, and it would be more 
proper to say, In the beginning Reason (Ratio) 
was with God, than In the beginning the Word 
(Sermo) was with God; since Reason is mani- 
festly prior to the Word which it dictates. 
jNot that this distinction is of great moment. 
For as God reasoned with himself, and ar- 
ranged the plan of creation, he may be accu- 
rately said, by so doing, to have made his 
Reason his Word. Thought, as we know 
from our own experience, is a species of in- 
ternal conversation. 192 This power and dispo- 

suara scilicet. Rationalis enim Deus, et Ratio in ipso prius ; 
et ita ab ipso omnia ; quae Ratio sensus ipsius est. Compare 
the conclusion of c. 15. Sensus in this passage., according to 
Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, Sect. 3. c. 10. p. 238. cor- 
responds to the Greek word ewoia. In the Tract de Pras- 
scriptione Haereticorum, c. 33. as was observed in note 135. 
Tertullian uses it as synonymous with vovs. The difficulty 
is to reconcile this mode of explaining the generation of 
Word with the notion of distinct personality. The reader 
however, may consult Horsley's fourth Supplemental Dis- 
quisition. There is towards the conclusion of c. 5. an ex- 
pression on which Bull animadverts severely : — Possum itaque 
non temere praestruxisse, et tunc Deum, ante universitatis 
constitutionem, solum non fuisse, habentem in semetipso 
proinde Rationem, et in ratione Sermonem, quern secundum 
a se faceret agitando intra se. p. 236. 

192 c. 6. Tertullian refers to Proverbs viii. 22. introduc- 
ing the quotation by the words, Itaque Sophiam quoque 
exaudi, ut secundam personam conditam ; words which would 
at first sight seem to imply that the second Person in the Tri- 
nity was created : but he adds, in sensu suo scilicet condens 

et 



535 

sition of the Divine intelligence (Divini sensus) 
is called also in Scripture cro<pia, or wisdom; 
for what can be better entitled to the name of 
Wisdom than the Reason and Word of God? 
When, therefore, God had determined to ex- 
hibit in their different substances and forms, 
those things which he had planned within 
himself in conjunction with the Reason and 
Word of his wisdom, he 195 sent forth his 
Word — who had also in himself reason and 
wisdom inseparably united to him — to the end 
that all things might be made by him by whom 
they had been originally devised and planned — 
nay had been actually made, as far as the 
Divine intelligence was concerned (quantum in 
Dei sensu)- — nothing more being wanting to 
them, than that they should be known, and as 
it were fixed in their respective substances and 
forms. 194 Such is the perfect nativity of the 
Word, as he proceeds from God: formed by 
Him first, to devise, under the name of wis- 
dom ; then begotten, for the purpose of carrying 

et generans (Deus.) Part of c. 7- is employed in proving the 
identity of the Word and Wisdom of God. Compare adv. 
Hermogenerm c. 20. 

193 Semler infers that, previously to this prolation, the 
Word had no distinct personality. 

194 c. 7. Haec est nativitas perfecta Sermonis, dum ex 
Deo procedit : conditus ab eo primum ad cogitatum in nomine 
Sophiae — dehinc generatus ad effectum. 



536 

into effect what had been devised." — The reader 
will in this passage recognise a distinction, 
with which the early Fathers were familiar, 
between the \6yo$ evStaQeros and the \6y09 
7rpo<popiKos. Tertullian's language would at first 
sight appear to imply, that the generation of 
the Word took place when he was sent forth 
to create the world; and that his distinct 
personality commenced from that period. It 
is, however, certain that our author intended 
to assert the distinct personality of the \6yo? 

One of the objections urged by Praxeas 
was, that the Word of God meant nothing 
more than the Word of his Mouth — not a 
distinct agent, but the emission of his voice, 
to which, in metaphorical language, agency 
was ascribed. 195 " What," he asked, " do you 
make the Word a substance, when it is in 
truth a voice, a sound proceeding from the 
mouth ; and, as the grammarians say, an im- 
pulse given to the air, and intelligible through 
the hearing?" To this objection Tertullian 



195 c. 7- Ergo, inquis, das aliquam substantiam esse Ser- 
raonem, Spiritu et Sophias traditione constructam ? Plane. 
And again, Quid est enim, dices, sermo nisi vox et sonus oris., 
et sicut Grammatici tradunt, aer offensus, intelligibilis auditu? 
caeterum vacuum njescio quid et inane et incorporale ? 



5S1 

answers, that the expressions in Scripture re-' 
specting the Word are of such a nature that 
they imply a Person, whom we call the Son, 
distinct from the Father; and that they cannot 
be accounted for on the supposition that they 
are metaphorical. Can the Word, of whom it 
is said that without him nothing was made that 
was made, be supposed to be a mere empty 
sound? Can that, which is without substance, 
create substances? 196 " Whatever then," con- 
cludes Tertullian, "may be the substance of 
the Word, I call that substance a person, and 
give it the name of Son ; and while I acknow- 
ledge a Son, I maintain that he is second to 
the Father." Thus our author determines the 
first question which he proposed to discuss — 
whether there is a Son ? 

We have seen that Tertullian, in speaking 
of the generation of the Son, uses the words 
197 protulit and procedit. He 198 thinks it, there- 
fore, necessary to refute by anticipation the 

196 Qusecunque ergo substantia Sermonis fuit, illam dico 
personam, et illi nomen Filii vindico ; et dum Filium agnosco, 
secundum a Patre defendo. The expression, secundum a 
Patre, according to Semler, implies a complete separation of 
the Son from the Father — a separation of substance ; but 
whoever reads the following Chapter (8.) will be convinced 
that such was not Tertullian' s notion. 

19 7 Note 181. of this Chapter. 

198 c 8. 



538 

charge of introducing the Valentinian TrpofioXrj, 
Prolation of JEons. "Their Prolation," he 
says, "implies an entire separation of the sub- 
stance emitted— mine does not prevent its most 
intimate union with that from which it pro- 
ceeds." In order to explain his meaning, he 
borrows illustrations from natural objects. 199 The 
three persons in the Trinity stand to each 
other in the relation of the root, the shrub, 
and the fruit; of the fountain, the river, and 
the cut from the river: of the sun, the ray, 
and the terminating point of the ray. For 
these illustrations he professes himself indebted 
to the Revelations of the Paraclete. In later 
times, divines have occasionally resorted to 
similar illustrations, for the purpose of fami- 
liarising the doctrine of the Trinity to the 
mind; nor can any danger arise from the pro- 
ceeding, so long as we recollect that they are 
illustrations, not arguments — that we must not 
draw conclusions from them, or think that 
whatever may be truly predicated of the illus- 

199 Protulit enim Deus Sermonem, quemadmodum etiam 
Paracletus docet, sicut radix fruticem, et fons fluvium, et Sol 
radium: quoted in note 30. of Chap. I. Again, Tertius enim 
est Spiritus a Deo et Filio, sicut tertius a radice, fructus ex 
frutice ; et tertius a fonte, rivus ex numine ; et tertius a Sole, 
apex ex radio. I know not whether I have rightly translated 
the words rivus and apex. Let me take this opportunity of 
observing that I undertake, only to state, not always to 
explain or comprehend, Tertullian's notions. 



539 

tration, may be predicated with equal truth of 
that which it was designed to illustrate. 

"Notwithstanding, 200 however, the inti- 
mate union which subsists between the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost, we must be careful," 
Tertullian continues, "to distinguish between 
their Persons." In his representations of this 
distinction, he sometimes uses expressions 
which in after times, when controversy had 
introduced greater precision of language, were 
studiously avoided by the Orthodox. 201 Thus 
he calls the Father the whole substance — the 
Son a derivation from or portion of the whole. 
In proving the distinction of persons he lays 
particular stress on 202 John xiv. 16. He 
205 contends also that Father and Son are corre- 
lative terms, one of which implies the exist- 
ence of the other: there cannot be a Father 
without a Son, or a Son without a Father. 
Consequently the doctrine of Praxeas, which 

200 c . g m 

201 Pater enim tota substantia est, Alius vero derivatio totius 
et portio, sicut ipse profitetur, quia Pater major me est. Semler 
supposes derivatio to be a translation of diroppoia, a word which 
he states to have been rightly rejected by Irenaeus, and others. 
See c 14. pro modulo derivationis, and c. 26. Bull, Sect. 2. 
c. 7- p- 95. 

202 ec i w [\\ p ra y t i le father, and he shall give you another- 
Comforter — even the Spirit of Truth." 

203 c. 10. 



540 

confounds the Father and the Son, must be 
erroneous. To this argument Praxeas replied, 
that nothing is impossible with God — that He, 
who could make a barren woman and even 
204 a Virgin bear, could make himself at once 
both Father and Son. In support of this 
assertion he quoted the first verse of Genesis, 
in which 205 he appears to have read, In prin- 
cipio Deus fecit sibi filium. Tertullian rejoins, 
that our business is to enquire what God has 
done, not to conjecture what he can do ; or 
to infer that, because he can produce a cer- 
tain event, he has produced it. He could 
have given men wings ; but he has not given 
them. In God, will and power are the same ; 
what, therefore, he wills not to do, that in 
one sense he cannot do. Tertullian 206 pro- 
ceeds to say that Praxeas, in order to estab- 



204 It appears from this passage that Praxeas admitted the 
miraculous Conception. 

205 c. 5. Aiunt quidem et Genesin in Hebraico ita inci- 
pere, In principio Deus fecit sibi Jilium : Semler doubts the 
truth of Tertullian's assertion. His note is, Mirum est sic 
quosdam Jinxisse. 

206 c. 11. Tertullian here uses an expression which Sem- 
ler conceives to savour of Arianism. Probare autem tarn aperte 
debebis ex Scripturis, quam nos probamus ilium sibi Filium 

fecisse Sermonem suum. But Tertullian had before said, in 
speaking of the Reason and Word of God, Cum ratione enim 
sua, cogitans atque disponens Sermonem earn efficiebat, quam 
Sermone tractabat, c. 5. See also adv. Marcionem, L. ii. c. 27. 
Sermonem ejus, quern ex semetipso proferendo filium fecit. 



541 

lish his point, ought to produce passages of • 
Scripture, in which the absolute identity of 
the Father and Son is as clearly expressed, 
as is the distinction of Persons in the pas- 
sages produced by the Orthodox. Our author 
then alleges various passages, 207 many of them 
from the Old Testament ; and 208 dwells par- 
ticularly on Genesis i. 26. — where God, when 
about to create man, speaks in the plural 
number, " Let us make man in our image ? 
after our likeness." 

"But 209 how," asked Praxeas, "do you 
clear yourself of the charge of polytheism— 
of teaching a plurality of gods?" 210 Having 
first shewn by copious quotations from Scrip- 
ture that the names Deus and Dominus are 
applied to Christ, and consequently that the 
Sacred Writers may with equal justice be ac- 
cused of inculcating polytheism — Tertullian 
answers, 2n that " the Orthodox never speak of 

207 Isaiah xlii. 1. lxi. 1. Psalm ex. 1. 

208 c. 12. Cum quibus enim faciebat hominem, et quibus 
faciebat similem? Cum Filio quidem, qui erat induturus 
hominem ; Spiritu vero, qui erat sanctificaturus hominem ; 
quasi cum ministris et arbitris, ex unitate Trinitatis, loque- 
batur. The Jews supposed the Almighty in this verse to 
speak to the Angels. 209 c. 15. 

210 For instance, Tertullian refers to Psalm xlv. 7, 8. ex. 1. 
Isaiah xlv. 14. liii. 1. Genesis xix. 14. John i. 1. 

211 Compare c 19. 



542 

two Gods or two Lords, though they affirm 
that each Person in the Trinity is God and 
Lord. The design of those passages in the 
Old Testament, in which two Gods or two 
Lords are mentioned, was to prepare the minds 
of men to acknowledge Christ, when he 
should appear, as God and Lord. But now 
that Christ has appeared, the necessity for 
using this language has ceased ; and we speak 
only of one God and one Lord. When, there- 
fore, we have occasion to mention both the 
Father and Son, we imitate 212 St. Paul, and 
call the Father, God; the Son, Lord. When 
to mention the Son alone, we again imitate 
213 St Paul, and caU him God." "If," adds 
Tertullian, " you require additional proof of 
our abhorrence of polytheism, you may find 
it in our refusal to acknowledge two Gods 
and two Lords, although by making the ac- 
knowledgement we might escape the pains of 
martyrdom." 

Tertullian 214 proceeds to argue that a 
distinction of Persons in the Godhead affords 
the only means of reconciling some apparent 
inconsistencies in the Sacred Writings. At 
215 one time God says to Moses that no man 

212 Romans i. 4. 213 Romans ix. 5. 

214 c. 14. 215 Exodus xxxiii. 13, 1-8, 20. 



543 

can see his face and live; at another we read, 
that God appeared to Abraham, Jacob, and the 
Prophets. These apparent contradictions can 
only be reconciled by supposing that it was 
216 the Son who appeared. "But what," asked 
Praxeas, "do you gain by this supposition? 
Is not the Son, who is the Word and Spirit, 
equally invisible with the Father? And if it 
was the Son who conversed with Moses, it 
was the face of the Son which no man could 
see and live ; you in fact establish the identity 
of the Father and Son. Father and Son are 
only names applied to the same God; the 
former, when he is invisible: the latter, when 
visible." " We grant," answers Tertullian, 
" that the Son, inasmuch as he is God and 
Word and Spirit, is invisible; but he was 
seen by the Prophets in visions, and conversed 
with Moses face to face at the time of the 
transfiguration; for in that event was accom- 
plished the 217 promise made by God to speak 
with Moses face to face. 218 The New Testa- 

216 Compare Adv. Judaeos, c. 9. Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. 
cc. 6, 9- L. iv. cc. 10, 13. L. v. c. 19. De Carne Christi, c. 6. 

217 Numbers xii. 2. 

218 c. 15. We have seen, Chap. I. note 36. that Ter- 
tullian applies to the Holy Spirit the names Christi Vicarius, 
Domini Vicarius. De Virginibus velandis, c. 1. In like 
manner he calls Christ, Vicarius Patris. Adv. Marcionem, 
L. iii. c, 6. Adv. Praxeam, c. 24. 



544 

ment confirms this distinction between the 
Father, who was never seen ; and the Son, who 
appeared, in the early times in visions, but 
afterwards in the flesh. The 219 Son not only 
made all things, but has from the beginning 
conducted the government of this world. To 
Him all power was given. He it was who 
executed judgement upon mankind, by caus- 
ing the deluge, and by destroying Sodom and 
Gomorrah. He it was who descended to con- 
verse with man, appearing to Abraham, the 
Patriarchs and the Prophets in visions ; and 
thus as it were 220 preparing himself for his 
future residence on earth, when he was to 
assume the form and substance of man, and 
to become subject to human infirmities. 
Praxeas on the contrary ignorantly imputes 
all these acts to the Father; and supposes the 
Omnipotent, Invisible God, who dwells in 
light inaccessible, to have been seen by man 
and to have suffered thirst and hunger. 221 He 
makes this supposition, because the attributes 
and titles of God are ascribed in Scripture 
to Him who appeared to man; forgetting that 
those attributes and titles equally belong to 
the Son, though not precisely in the same 
manner as to the Father." 

219 c. 16. m Compare c. 12. 

221 c. 17. 



545 

Our author 222 next enters upon the con- 
sideration of those passages of Scripture which 
were urged by Praxeas in proof of the iden- 
tity of the Father and Son. When 223 it is 
said, for instance, that there is one God the 
Father, and besides him there is no other, Ter- 
tullian affirms that the existence of the Son 
is not denied, who is indeed one God with 
the Father. " These," he observes, " and simi- 
lar expressions were directed against the ido- 
latry and polytheism of the Heathen ; or 
designed to confute by anticipation the notions 
of those Heretics, who feigned another God 
by whom Christ was sent, distinct from the 
Creator. The error of Praxeas arises from con- 
fining his attention to those passages which 
favour his own opinion, and overlooking those 
which clearly bespeak a distinction of persons, 
without however violating the unity of the 
Godhead." Praxeas appears to have insisted 
particularly on the following texts in St. John's 
Gospel : 224 / and my Father are one. He who 
has seen me has seen the Father also. I in 
my Father and my Father in me. " To these 
few texts," observes Tertullian, "he wishes to 
make the whole of the Old and New Tes- 
taments bend: whereas, had he been really de- 

222 cc. 18, 19- 223 c 20. Isaiah xlv. 5. 

224 c. 10. ver. 30. 38. and c. 14. ver. 10, 

Mm 



546 

sirous of discovering the truth, he would have 
sought for such an interpretation of them as 
would have reconciled them to the rest of 
Scripture." Our 225 author then proceeds to 
shew, by a minute analysis of St. John's Gospel, 
that the Father and Son are constantly spoken 
of as distinct persons. With 226 respect to the 
first of the texts alleged by Praxeas — I and 
my Father are one, or as it stood in his Latin 
version Ego et Pater unum sumus — he anim- 
adverts severely upon the folly of that Heretic 
in urging it, who ought to have seen in the 
first place that two persons are mentioned, Ego 
et Pater; in the next that the word sumus 
implies a plurality of persons. "If," he con- 
tinues, " the masculine noun unus had been used 
instead of the neuter unum, the passage might 
have afforded some countenance to the doc- 
trine of Praxeas: — since unus might mean one 
with reference to number; whereas unum can 
only imply unity of substance." — With respect 
to the third text, / in my Father and my 
Father in me, Tertullian's remark is that Christ 
had just before referred to the miracles which 
he had wrought. He meant, therefore, to affirm 
that he possessed the same power as the Father : 

225 cc. 21, 23, 24. 

226 c. 22. Tertullian's interpretation of the second text 
will be found in c. 24. 



547 

• 

that they were one as to the power of work- 
ing miracles. — Our author urges incidentally, 
as an argument against the doctrine of Praxeas, 
that the Jews in his day did not look for the 
coming of the Father; but of a distinct per- 
son — the anointed of the Father. 

Tertullian comes at 227 last to those pas- 
sages relating to the mission of the Paraclete, 
which, as has been already remarked, he con- 
ceived to afford decisive proof of the dis- 
tinction of persons in the Trinity. In his 
comment upon them, he has been supposed to 
allude to the celebrated verse in the first Epistle 
of St. John, which contains the three Hea- 
venly witnesses. It is not my intention to 
engage in the general controversy respecting 
the genuineness of the verse; but it may be 
expected that I should state my opinion upon 
that part of the question in which Tertullian 
is immediately concerned. We have seen that, 
according to him, Praxeas confounded the Per- 
sons in the Trinity ; though, if we may judge 
from his mode of conducting the controversy, 
it turned principally upon the Persons of the 
Father and the Son. Praxeas 228 quoted in 
support of his opinion, Ego et Pater unum 
sumus. Tertullian replied, "that verse is di- 

227 c. 25. See note 202. m c. 22. 

M M 2 



548 

rectly against you; for though it declares an 
unity of substance in the Father and Son, 
it also declares a duality, if we may coin a 
word, of Persons." Having established his 
point with respect to the first and second 
Persons in the Trinity, Tertullian proceeds to 
the third. "We have seen," he says, "that 
the Son promised that, when he had ascended 
to the Father, he would ask the Father to 
send another Comforter; and we 229 have seen 
in what sense he was called another Com- 
forter. 230 Of this Comforter the Son says, He 
shall take of mine, as the Son himself had 
taken of the Father's. Thus the connexion 
of the Father in the Son and of the Son in 
the Paraclete makes three coherent Persons, 
one in the other; which three are one in sub- 
stance, unum; not one in number, unus; in 
the same manner in which it was said, i" and 
my Father are oner Now in case Tertullian 
had been acquainted with 1 John v. 7. a verse 
which as clearly proved, according to his own 
mode of reasoning, the unity of substance and 
distinction of Persons in the Father, Son, and 

229 c. 9- 

230 Caeterum de meo sumet, inquit, sicut ipse de patris. 
Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit 
cohaerentes, alteram ex altero; qui tres unum sunt, non 
unus ; quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus, ad 
substantia? unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem. 



549 

Holy Ghost, as Ego et Pater unum sumus did 
in the Father and Son — I would ask whether 
it is not contrary to all reason to suppose 
that he would have neglected to quote it, 
and chosen rather to refer his readers to the 
latter text (John x. 30.) and to John xvi. 14. ? 
An attempt has, I am aware, been made to 
evade the force of this argument by saying 
that "Tertullian could not expressly quote 
1 John v. 7. because it contains as just a 
description of the doctrine of Praxeas as that 
Heretic could have given. The second Per- 
son in the Trinity is there designated as 
the Word: and Praxeas argued that 231 the 
Word could not mean a distinct Person, but 
merely a voice— a sound proceeding from the 
mouth." But if this reason was sufficient to 
prevent Tertullian from quoting the verse, it 
would also have prevented him from alluding 
to it. It is, however, quite incredible, that 
any such reason should have occurred to him. 
252 A considerable portion of his Tract is occu- 
pied in arguing that the Word (Sermo, not 
Filius) is a distinct Person from the Father; 
and in proof of this position he 233 quotes from 
Psalm xliv. (or xlv.) Eructavit cor meum ser- 

231 c. 7- 232 See cc. 5, 7- 

233 c. 11. Aut exhibe probationem, quam expostulo, meae 
similem ; id est, sic Scripturas eundem Filium et Patrera osten- 

dere, 



550 

monem optimum. Would a writer, who alleged 
such a passage in support of the distinct per- 
sonality of the Word, be deterred from quoting 
1 John v. 7. because the name of Verbum is 
there given to the second Person in the Tri- 
nity? In my opinion, the passage in Tertul- 
lian, far from containing an allusion to 1 John 
v. 7. furnishes most decisive proof that he 
knew nothing of the verse. It is not unworthy 
of remark that throughout this Tract, when 
speaking of the Word, he uses 254 Sermo, and 
not Verbum. 

To return to Tertullian's argument against 
Praxeas: — after 255 briefly referring to different 
passages in the Gospels of St. Matthew and 
St. Luke, which prove the existence of the Son 
as a distinct Person from the Father, he pro- 

dere, quemadmodum apud nos distincte Pater et Filius de- 
monstrantur ; distincte inquam, non divise. Sicut ego profero 
dictum a Deo, Eructavit cor meum Sermonem optimum ; sic tu 
contra opponas alicubi dixisse Deum, Eructavit me cor meum 
Sermonem optimum; ut ipse sit et qui eructavit et quod 
eructavit ; et ipse qui protulerit et qui prolatus sit, si ipse est 
et Sermo et Deus. This argument, in favour of the distinct 
personality of the Word, is lost in our Version,, My heart 
is inditing of a good matter. See Porson to Travis, p. 260. 

234 a great outcry was raised against Erasmus for trans- 
lating Aoyos, Sermo, in his Version of the New Testament. 
See his Apology de In principio erat Sermo. Opera, Tom. IX. 
p. 111. Ed. Ludg. Bat. 1706, and his Note on John i. 1. 

235 c. 26. 



551 

ceeds to the two remaining questions which 
he proposed to discuss — Who the Son is, and 
how He exists. In 236 order to get rid of our 
author's conclusion respecting the distinction 
of Persons, Praxeas contended that, in the 
passages on which it was founded, the Son 
237 meant the flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; 
the Father meant the Spirit, that is God, that 
is Christ. "Thus," observes Tertullian, "he 
contradicts himself: for if Jesus and Christ 
are different Persons, the Son and Father are 
different : since the son is Jesus, and the Father 
Christ. Nor is this all : for he also divides the 
person of Christ." Here ^our author under- 
takes to explain in what manner the Word 
was made flesh. He was not transfigured into 
flesh, but put on flesh. Transfiguration implies 
the destruction of that which before existed. 
Neither must we suppose that the Word was 
so confounded with the flesh as to produce 
a third substance, in the same manner in which 
gold mixed with silver produces what is called 
electrum. 259 Christ was both God and man : — 

236 c. 27- 

237 From this statement Lardner argues that Praxeas 
was not a Patripassian ; since he believed that the Son alone 
suffered. History of Heretics, c. 20. Sect. 7, 8. 

238 See the passage, quoted in Chap. VI. note 138. 

239 Sed haec vox carnis et animae, id est hominis, non 
Sermonis nee Spiritus, id est non Dei, propterea emissa est 
ut impassibilem Deum ostenderet, qui sic filium dereliquit, 

dum 



552 

the Word and the flesh, that is, the divine and 
human natures, were united in his person, but 
were not confounded. Each displayed itself 
in its peculiar operations: in 240 the former he 
worked miracles ; in the latter he hungered, 
thirsted, wept, was sorrowful even unto death, 
and died. 241 " If," adds Tertullian, « we attend 
only to the meaning of the word Christus, we 
shall perceive the absurdity of supposing that 
the Father and Christ are one Person. Christus 
means one who is anointed — anointed conse- 
quently by another; but by whom could the 
Father be anointed?" 242 Tertullian concludes 
the Treatise with observing that the doctrine 
of the Trinity constituted the great difference 
between the faith of a Jew and a Christian. 
Praxeas, therefore, by confounding the Son and 
the Holy Ghost with the Father, carried the 
believer back to Judaism. 

After the detailed account which has been 
given of the Tract against Praxeas, we need 
scarcely observe that Tertullian maintained a 

dum hominem ejus tradidit in mortem, c 30. The meaning 
seems to be, that, as man, Christ had a body and soul : as 
God, he had also the Spirit, which left him on the cross ; 
and by the loss of which he became subject to death. Com- 
pare de Came Christi, cc. 5. 17- 

240 Compare c 16. Apology, c 21. Ostendens se esse 
Xoyo.v Dei. &c 

*« c. 28. 242 c. 31. 



55S 

real Trinity; or in the words of our first 
Article, that "in the unity of the Godhead 
there be three Persons of one substance, power, 
and eternity." 243 Semler in one of his notes 
affirms, that Tertullian was the earliest writer 
who used the words Trinitas and Persona, in 
speaking of the persons in the Godhead. He 
also asserts that Tertullian borrowed them from 
the Valentinians ; but this assertion is unsup- 
ported by proof. There is undoubtedly a pas- 
sage in the 244 Treatise de Anima, in which 
he. uses the word Trinitas to express the 
Valentinian distinction of men into three dif- 
ferent species, spiritual, animal, and material: 
but it does not, therefore, follow that he bor- 
rowed the word from the Valentinians ; for 
he has in 245 the very same Tract applied it 
to the Platonic division of the soul into Xoyucdv, 
OvfjiiKov, and einOvfi^TLKov, We find also 246 in the 

243 c. 8. The word Trinitas occurs also in cc. 2. 11. 

244 c. 21. Ut adhuc Trinitas Valentiniana caedatur. See 
also de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 7- Trinitas hominis 
apud Valentinum. 

245 c. 16. Ecce enim tota haec Trinitas et in Domino : 

rationale indignativum — et concupiscentivum. See Chap. 

III. P- 199- 

246 c. 28. There is a singular representation of the Trinity 
in the Tract de Pudicitia, c. 21. sub fine. Nam et Ecclesia 
proprie et principaliter ipse est Spiritus, in quo est Tri- 
nitas unius divinitatis, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. 
Illam Ecclesiam congregat quam Dominus in tribus posuit. 
We have already on more than one occasion referred to 

the 



554 

Tract de Resurrectione Carnis, the expression 
"Trina Virtus Dei;" but it is employed to 
denote the triple exercise of God's power, in 
rendering the devil subject to man — in raising 
the body of man from the grave — and in calling 
him to judgement hereafter. 

Our analysis of the Treatise against Praxeas 
further proves that the opinions of TertuUian, 
respecting the Son and the Holy Ghost, essenti- 
ally coincided with the doctrines of our Church. 
According to him "the Son, which is the 
247 Word of the Father, begotten from ever- 
lasting of the Father, 248 the very, and eternal 

the notion, adopted by TertuUian after he became a Mon- 
tanist, that three persons constitute a Church. 

247 Adv. Praxeam, c. 5. 

248 Apology, c. 21. Necesse est igitur pauca de Christo, 
ut Deo. — Hunc (rov \6yov) ex Deo prolatum dieimus, et 
prolatione generatum, et idcirco Filium Dei et Deum dic- 
tum ex unitate substantias : nam et Deus Spiritus. Et 
quum radius ex sole porrigitur, portio ex summa, sed sol 
exit in radio, quia solis est radius: nee separatur substantia, 
sed extenditur. Ita de Spiritu Spiritus, et de Deo Deus, 
ut lumen de lumine accensum — Iste igitur Dei radius, ut 
retro semper prsedicabatur, delapsus in Virginem quandam, 
et in utero ejus caro figuratus, nascitur homo Deo mistus. 
Caro Spiritu instructa nutritur, adolescit, affatur, docet, ope- 
ratur, et Christus est. TertuUian then proceeds to describe 
Christ's crucifixion, his resurrection on the third day, and 
ascension. Compare adv. Marcionem, L. hi. c. 12. De Spec- 
taculis, c. 25. We learn incidentally from the passage in 
the Apology that the Jews expected a mere man in the 
Messiah. 



555 

God, of one substance with the Father, took 
man's nature in the womb of the Blessed 
Virgin, of her substance: so that 249 two whole 
and perfect natures, that is, the Godhead and 
manhood, were joined together in one person, 
250 never to be divided ; whereof is one Christ, 
very God and very man ; who truly suffered, 
was dead and buried." 251 According to him 
"Christ did truly rise again from death, and 
took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all 
things appertaining to the perfection of man's 
nature, wherewith he ascended into Heaven, 
and there sitteth until he return to judge all 
men at the last day." Lastly, according to 
him, " The Holy Ghost, proceeding 252 from the 

249 Aliter non diceretur homo Christus sine carne; 
nee hominis Alius sine aliquo parente homine; sicut nee 
Deus sine Spiritu Dei, nee Dei filius sine Deo patre. Ita 
utriusque substantia? census hominem et Deum exhibuit: 
hinc natum, inde non natum ; hinc carneum, inde spiritalem ; 
hinc infirmum, inde praefortem ; hinc morientem., inde viven- 
tem. De Carne Christi, c. 5. 

250 I have observed nothing, in Tertullian's writings, which 
corresponds to the expression never to be divided. 

25i Adv. Praxeam, c. 30. De Carne Christi, c. 24. Sed 
bene quod idem veniet de ccelis, qui est passus : idem om- 
nibus apparebit, qui est resuscitatus ; et videbunt, et agnos- 
cent, qui eum confixerunt; utique ipsam carnem in quam 
saevierunt ; sine qua nee ipse esse poterit, nee agnosci. See 
particularly de Res. Carnis, c. 51. 

252 Tertius enim est Spiritus a Deo et Filio, sicut tertius 
a radice fructus ex frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus ex flumine, 
et tertius a sole apex ex radio; nihil tamen a matrice alie- 
natur, a qua proprietates suas ducit. Adv. Praxeam, c. 8. 

We 



556 

Father and the Son, is of one substance, 
majesty, and glory with the Father, very and 
eternal God." 

But though we think that Tertullian's opi- 
nions on these points coincided in the main 
with the doctrines of our Church, we are 
far from t meaning to assert that expressions 
may not occasionally be found which are 
capable of a different interpretation ; and which 
were carefully avoided by the Orthodox writers 
of later times, when the controversies respect- 
ing the Trinity had introduced greater pre- 
cision of language. Pamelius has thought it 
necessary to put the reader on his guard 
against certain of these expressions ; and Sem- 
ler has noticed with a sort 255 of ill-natured 
industry every passage in the Tract against 
Praxeas, in which there is any appearance 

We have seen that in another place Tertullian speaks as 
If the Holy Ghost was from the Father through the Son. 
Quia Spiritum non aliunde puto quam a Patre per Filium, 
c. 4. 

253 \y e ca ]i j t an ill_ n atured industry, because the true 
mode of ascertaining a writer's opinions is, not to fix upon 
particular expressions, but to take the general tenor of his 
language. If any thing is expressly affirmed in the Tract 
against Praxeas, it is, that the Son is of the substance of 
the Father : yet Semler, finding in c. 27- this passage, Quis 
Deus in ea natus ? Sermo, et Spiritus qui cum Sermone 
de Patris voluntate natus est, makes the following remark : 
Sic, i. e. de Patris voluntate, Ariani, non e'f ovala<;. 



557 

of contradiction, or which will bear a con- 
struction favourable to the Arian tenets. Bull, 
also, who conceives the language of Tertullian 
to be explicit and correct on the subject of the 
pre-existence and the consubstantiality, admits 
that he occasionally uses expressions at variance 
with the co-eternity of Christ. For instance, 
in the 254 Tract against Hermogenes, we find 
the following passage : Quia et Pater Deus 
est, et judex Deus est ; non tamen ideo Pater 
et judex semper, quia Deus semper. Nam 
nee Pater potuit esse ante Filium, nee judex 
ante delictum. Fuit autem tempus quum et 
delictum et Filius non fuit, quod Judicem et 
qui Patrem Deum faceret. Here it is expressly 
asserted that there was a time when the Son 
was not. Perhaps, however, a reference to the 
peculiar tenets of Hermogenes will enable us 
to account for this assertion. That Heretic 
affirmed, as we shall shortly have occasion to 
shew more in detail, that matter was eternal, 
and argued thus, "God was always God and 
always Lord: but the word Lord implies the 

254 c. 3. Compare c. 18. Agnoscat, ergo, Hermogenes 
idcirco etiam Sophiam Dei natam et conditam praedicari, 
ne quid innatum et inconditum prater solum Deum ere- 
deremus. Si enim intra Dominurm quod ex ipso et in ipso 
fuit, sine initio non fuit — Sophia scilicet ipsius, exinde nata 
et condita, ex quo in sensu Dei ad opera mundi disponenda 
ccepit agitari ; multo magis non capit sine initio quicquam 
fuisse, quod extra Dominum fuerit. 



558 

existence of something over which he was 
Lord ; unless, therefore, we suppose the eternity 
of something distinct from God, it is not true 
that he was always Lord." Tertullian boldly 
answered that God was not always Lord ; and 
that in Scripture we do not find him called 
Lord, until the work of creation was com- 
pleted. In like manner he contended that 
the titles of Judge and Father imply the ex- 
istence of sin and of a Son. As, therefore, 
there was a time when neither sin nor the 
Son existed, the titles of Judge and Father 
were not at that time applicable to God. Ter- 
tullian could scarcely mean to affirm, in direct 
opposition to his own statements in the 255 Tract 
against Praxeas, that there was ever a time 
when the X0709, or Ratio, or Sermo internus, 
did not exist. But with respect to Wisdom 
and the Son, Sophia and Filius, the case is 
different. Tertullian assigns to both a beginning 
of existence: 256 Sophia was created or formed, 
in order to devise the plan of the universe; 
and the Son was begotten, in order to carry 



255 With respect to the Sermo externus, Tertullian speaks 
of a time antecedent to his emission. Nam etsi Deus nondum 
Sermonem suum miserat Adv. Praxeam, c. 5. 

256 c. 7. Hsec est nativitas perfecta Sermonis, dum ex 
Deo procedit: conditus ab eo primum ad cogitatum in nomine 
Sophia? — dehinc generatus ad effectum. 



559 

that plan into effect. 257 Bull appears to hav.e 
given an accurate representation of the matter, 
when he says that, according to our author, 
the reason and spirit of God, being the sub- 
stance of the Word and Son, were co-eternal 
with God: but that the titles of Word and 
Son were not strictly applicable until the 
former had been emitted to arrange, the latter 
begotten to execute, the work of creation. 
Without, therefore, attempting to explain, 
much less to defend all Tertullian's expressions 
and reasonings, we are disposed to acquiesce 

^7 Defensio Fidei Nicaenas. Sect. iii. c. 10. p. 242. Bull 
refers to the following passages in support of his interpre- 
tation. Sermo autem Spiritu structus est, et, ut ita dixerim, 
Sermonis corpus est Spiritus. Sermo ergo et in Patre semper, 
sicut dicit, Ego in Patre; et apud Deum semper, sicut 
scriptum est, Et Sermo erat apud Deum. Adv. Praxeam, 
c. 8. Nos etiam Sermoni atque rationi, itemque virtuti, per 
quae omnia molitum Deum ediximus, propriam substantiam Spi- 
ritum inscribimus. Apology, c. 21. Quaecunque ergo sub- 
stantia Sermonis fuit, illam dico Personam, et illi nomen 
Filii vindico. Adv. Praxeam, c. 7* To these may be added, 
Quia ipse quoque Sermo, ratione consistens, priorem earn 
ut substantiam suam ostendat. Adv. Praxeam, c. 5. Virtute 
et ratione comitatum, et Spiritu fultum. Apology, c. 21. 
Hie Spiritus Dei idem erit Sermo ; sicut enim, Ioanne dicente, 
Sermo caro f actus est, Spiritum quoque intelligimus in nomine 
Sermonis ; ita et hie Sermonem quoque agnoscimus in nomine 
Spiritus. Nam et Spiritus substantia est Sermonis, et Sermo 
operatio Spiritus : et duo unum sunt. Adv. Praxeam, c. 26. 
See however adv. Hermogenem, c. 45. Non apparentis solum- 
modo, nee adpropinquantis, sed adhibentis tantos animi sui 
nisus, Sophiam, valentiam, sensum, sermonem, Spiritum, vir- 
tutem. 



560 

in the statement given by Bull of his opinions, 
258 Ex quibus omnibus liquet, quam temere ut 
solet, pronuntiaverit Petavius, Quod ad ceter- 
nitatem attinet Verbi, palam esse, Tertullianum 
minime illam agnovisse. Mihi sane, atque, ut 
arbitror, post tot apertissima testimonia a me 
adducta, lectori etiam meo prorsus contrarium 
constat ; nisi vero, quod non credo, luserit 
Petavius in vocabulo verbi. Nam Filium Dei, 
docet quidem Tertullianus Verbum sive Ser- 
monem factum ac denominatum fuisse ab ali- 
quo initio: nempe 259 tum, quando ex Deo 
Patre exivit cum voce, Fiat Lux, ad exor- 
nandum universa. Atqui ipsam illam hypos- 
tasis qua3 sermo sive verbum et Filius Dei 
dicitur, seternam credidisse Tertullianum, puto 
me abunde demon strasse. 

In speaking also of the Holy Ghost, Ter- 
tullian occasionally uses terms of a very am- 
biguous and equivocal character. He 260 says, 
for instance, that in Gen. i. 26. God addressed 
the Son, his Word, the second Person in the 
Trinity, and the third Person, the Spirit in 
the Word. Here the distinct personality of 

258 Sect. 3. c. 10. p. 246. 

259 Adv. Praxeam, c. 7- sub in. 

260 Adv. Praxeam > c. 12. Imo, quia jam adhaerebat ill! 
filius, secunda Persona, Sermo ipsius ; et tertia, Spiritus in 
Sermone. 



561 

the Spirit is expressly asserted; though it is 
difficult to reconcile the words, Spiritus in ser- 
mone, with the assertion. It is, however, cer- 
tain, both from the general tenor of the Tract 
against Praxeas, and 261 from many passages in 
his other writings, that the distinct personality 
of the Holy Ghost formed an article of Ter- 
tullian's creed. The occasional ambiguity of his 
language respecting the Holy Ghost is perhaps 
in part to be traced to the variety of senses 
in which the word Spkitus is used. It is ap- 
plied generally 262 to God, for God is a Spirit ; 
and for the same reason to the Son, who is 
frequently called the 263 Spirit of God, the 
264 Spirit of the Creator. 265 Bull also, following 
Grotius, has shewn that the word Spiritus is 
employed by the Fathers to express the divine 
nature in Christ. 

261 See for instance ad Martyres, c. 3. Bonum agonem 
subituri estis, in quo agonothetes Deus vivus est; xystarches 
Spiritus Sanctus; corona aeternitas; brabium Angelicas sub- 
stantias politia in ccelis, gloria in secula seculorum. Itaque 
epistates vester Christus Iesus. 

262 Adv. Marcionem, L. ii. c. 9- sub. in. 

263 De Oratione, c. 1. sub in. Dicimus enim et Filium 
suo nomine eatenus invisibilem, qua Sermo et Spiritus Dei. 
Adv. Praxeam, c. 14. See also c. 26. Adv. Marcionem, 
L. v. c. 8. 

264 Adv. Marcionem, L. iii. c. 6. Nam quoniam in Esaia 
jam tunc Christus, Sermo scilicet et Spiritus Creatoris, 
Ioannem praedicarat, L. iv. c. 33. sub fine. 

265 Defensio Fidei Nicsena?. Sect. 1. c. 2. p. 18. 

Nn 



In our 266 remark's upon the eighth Article 
of our Church we stated that, in treating 
of the Tract against Praxeas, an oppor- 
tunity would present itself of ascertaining 
how far the opinions of Tertullian coin- 
cided with the language employed in the 
Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. That the 
general doctrine of those Creeds is contained 
in Tertullian's writings cannot, we think, be 
doubted by any one who has carefully perused 
them. With respect to particular expressions, 
267 we find that he calls the Son— God of God 
and Light of Light. In referring to that 
verse in the fifteenth chapter of St. Paul's 
first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which it 
is said that Christ died for our sins according 
to the Scriptures, Tertullian 268 observes that 
the Apostle inserted the words according to 
the Scriptures, for the purpose of reconciling 
men, by the authority of Scripture, to the 
startling declaration that the Son of God had 
been made subject to death.— With respect 

266 Chap. V. p. 324,. 

267 See the passage from the Apology quoted in note 248. 
of this Chapter, and adv. Praxeam, c. 15. Nam etsi Deus 
Sermo, sed apud Deum, quia ex Deo Deus. 

268 Nam et Apostolus, non sine onere pronuntians 
Christum mortuum, adjicit secundum Scripturas, ut duritiam 
pronuntiationis Scripturarum auctoritate molliret, et scan- 
dalum auditori everteret. Adv. Praxeam, c. 29- 



563 

to the expressions in the Athanasian Creed, 
we find 269 Tertullian, while he asserts the 
distinction of the Persons in the Trinity, 
careful to maintain the unity of the sub- 
stance ; or in the language of the Creed, 
neither to confound the persons, nor divide 
the substance. We find also, in the 27 ° Tract 
against Hermogenes, an expression which, al- 
though there used without any reference to 
the Trinity, bears a strong resemblance to that 
clause in the Athanasian Creed, which declares 
that "in the Trinity none is afore or after 
other; none is greater or less than another." 
The Creed speaks of the Christian verity as 
compelling us to acknowledge that every Per- 
son in the Trinity by himself is God and 
Lord, and of the Catholic religion as enforc- 
ing the unity of God. 271 Tertullian speaks 
of the Christian verity as proclaiming the 
unity. On the subject of the Incarnation, the 

269 Alium autem quomodo accipere debeas, jam professus 
sum ; persona?, non substantias nomine ; ad distinctionem, non 
ad divisionem. Adv. Praxeam, c. 12. 

270 Tertullian is arguing upon the consequences which 
he conceived to flow from the doctrines of Hermogenes re- 
specting the eternity of matter. " That doctrine/' he says, 
"places matter on a perfect equality with God." Neutrum 
dicimUs altero esse minorern, sive majorem; neutrum altero 
humiliorem, sive superiorem, c. 7. 

271 Sed Veritas Christiana districte pronuntiavit, Deus si 
non unus est, non est. Adv. Marcionem, L. i. c. 3. 

NN 2 



564* 

reader who compares the 272 passages in the 
note with the corresponding clauses in the 
Creed, will be almost disposed to conclude 
that the framer of the Creed had Tertullian's 
expressions immediately in his view. 

There is, however, 275 a passage in the Traet 
de Carne Christi, which appears at first sight 
to be at variance with the following clause 
of the Creed, One, not hy conversion of the 

272 Sed enim invenimus ilium directo, et Deum et hominem 
expositum — certe usquequaque Filium Dei et Filium hominis, 
quum Deum et hominem, sine dubio secundum utramque 
substantiam, in sua proprietate distantem ; quia neque Sermo 
aliud quam Deus, neque caro aliud quam homo — Videmus 
duplicem statum ; non confusum, sed conjunctum in una 
Persona, Deum et hominem Iesum. Adv. Praxeam, c. 27- 
See also the passage from c. 30. quoted in note 239, where 
it is said that Christ, as man, had a soul and flesh. For 
the inferiority of the Son in his human nature, see c. 16, 
referred to in note 240. 

273 c. 3. " Sed ideo," inquis, ' ' nego Deum in hominem 
vere conversum, ita ut nasceretur et carne corporaretur 
(Rigault has operaretur); quia qui sine fine est, etiam in- 
convertibilis sit necesse est. Converti enim in aliud finis 
est pristini. Non competit ergo conversio cui non competit 
finis." Plane natura convertibilium ea lege est, ne perma- 
neant in eo quod convertitur in iis; et (ut) ita non per- 
manendo pereant; dum perdunt convertendo quod fuerunt. 
Sed nihil Deo par est; natura ejus ab omnium rerum con- 
ditione distat. Si ergo quae a Deo distant, aut a quibus 
Deus distat, quum convertuntur, amittunt quod fuerunt; 
ubi erit diversitas divinitatis a caeteris rebus, nisi ut con- 
trarium obtineat ; id est, ut Deus et in omnia converti possit, 
et qualis est perseverare? 



565 

Godhead into flesh. The Heretics, against ' 
whom Tertullian was contending, argued that 
" God could not possibly be converted into 
man, so as to be born and to be embodied in 
the flesh; because that which is eternal must 
necessarily be inconvertible. Conversion into 
a different state is the termination of the 
former state. If the Godhead was converted 
into manhood, it was entirely lost." To this 
argument Tertullian replied, that "although it 
might be correct with respect to all other 
natures, it was not so with reference to the 
divine nature. We read in Scripture, that at 
different times angels were converted into the 
human shape, and yet did not cease to be 
angels. Much more then might God assume 
the nature of man, and yet continue to be 
God." Here Tertullian appears to admit that 
in the mystery of the Incarnation there was a 
conversion of the Godhead into flesh, though he 
disallows the inference drawn by the Heretics 
from it. If, however, we compare this passage 
with another in the Tract against Praxeas, we 
shall find our author's 274 opinion, when accu- 

274 Quod ergo Angelis inferioribus licuit, uti conversi 
in corpulentiam humanam Angeli nihilominus permanerent; 
hoc tu potentiori Deo auferas? quasi non valuerit Christus, 
vere hominem indutus, Deus perseverare? Compare adv. 
Praxeam, c. 27- quoted also in Chap. vi. note 138. Igitur 
Sermo in carne ; dum et de hoc quserendum quomodo Sermo 

caro 



566 

rately stated, to have been, that God took 
upon himself manhood. 

The present appears to be the proper op- 
portunity for observing that, among other appel- 
lations given by Tertullian to Christ, we find 
those of Persona Dei, and Spiritus Personse 
Dei ; the 275 former derived from Psalm iv. 6. 
which stands thus in the Septuagint Version, 

ecnjimeiwOr} e(p rj/uia^ to (pcos tov TrpoGowrov <rou, 

Kvpie — the 276 latter from an erroneous reading 

of Lamentations iv. 20. irvevina irpoaojirov y,uwv, 

Xpicrros KvpLos, where avrov appears to have 
been substituted for rjpwv 

One of the questions on which theological 
ingenuity has exercised itself is, whether the 
flesh of Christ was corruptible or incorruptible. 
We have seen that Valentinus asserted a differ- 

caro sit factus ? utrumne quasi transfiguratus in came, an 
indutus carnem? imo, indutus. 

275 Cui respondet Spiritus in Psalmo ex providentia futuri : 
Significatum est, inquit, super nos lumen personam tuce, Domine. 
Persona autem Dei, Christus Dominus. Adv. Marcionem, 
L. v. c. 11. 

276 Nam et Scriptura quid dicit ? Spiritus persona? ejus, 
Christus Dominus. Ergo Christus persona? paternae Spiritus 
est, &c. Adv. Praxeam, c. 14. sub fine. But in the third 
Book against Marcion, c. 6. we find Personam Spiritus nostri, 
Christum Dominum. Rigault, however, in this passage, reads 
" Spiritus persona? ejus, Christus Dominus." See Jerome's 
Comment on the verse. 



567 

ence between Christ's flesh and human flesh. • 
In replying to this assertion, Tertullian 277 ob- 
serves, that Christ would not have been per- 
fect man, had not his flesh been human, and 
consequently corruptible. Tertullian 278 ascribes 
ubiquity to Christ as God, but not as the 
Conductor of the Gospel ceconomy. We 
find also 279 in his writings a notion, derived 
from Isaiah liii. 3. which was very common 
among the early Fathers — that the personal 
appearance of Christ was mean and ignoble. 

The next Heretic in Mosheim's catalogue 
is Hermogenes. He was 280 a painter by pro- 
fession, and contemporary with our author, 
from whose language it might be inferred 

2 77 De Carne Christi, c. 15. 

278 Ad v . Praxeam, c. 23. Habes Filium in terris, habes 
Patrem in ccelis. Non est separatio ista, sed dispositio divina. 
Caeterum scimus, Deum etiam intra abyssos esse, et ubique con- 
sisted sed vi et potestate, Filium quoque, ut individuum cum 
ipso, ubique. Tamen in ipsa oIkovo/jlici, Pater voluit Filium in 
terris haberi, se vero in ccelis. See Bull, Defensio Fidei, 
Sect. 4. c. 3. p. 271. 

2 7 9 De Idololatria, c. 18. De Carne Christi, cc. 9- 15. Adv. 
Marcionem, L. iii. c. 7« sub in. c. 17. sub in. Adv. Judaeos, 
c. 14. 

280 Adv. Hermogenem, c. 1. Hermogenis autem doctrina 
tam novella est ; denique ad hodiernum homo in seculo. Com- 
pare de Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. SO. Caeterum et Nigi- 
dius nescio quis et Hermogenes, et multi alii qui adhuc ambu- 
lant, pervertentes vias Dei. See also adv. Valentinianos, c. 16. 
De Monogamia, c. 16. 



568 

that he actually apostatised from Christianity to 
Paganism ; but I believe Tertullian's meaning to 
be, that he adopted the notions of the Pagan 
philosophers, the Stoics especially, respecting 
matter, which he conceived to be self-existent, 
and consequently eternal. From this matter, 
according to him, God made all things. 281 His 
mode of arguing was, " Either God made all 
things from himself, or from something, or 
from nothing. He could not make them 
from himself, because they would then be 
parts of himself; but 282 this, the Divine Na- 
ture, which is indivisible and always the 
same, does not allow. He could not make 
them from nothing; because, being infinitely 
good, he would not in that case have allowed 
evil to exist : — but evil does exist ; it must 
consequently have existed independently of 
God, that is, in matter." 283 Hermogenes urged 
another argument of a very subtle character, to 
which we have already had occasion to allude. 
" There never was a time when the title of 
Dominus or Lord was not applicable to God; 
but that title is relative — it implies the exist- 
ence of something over which God was Lord: 
that something was matter." To this argu- 
ment Tertullian answers without hesitation, 
that there was a time when the title was not 

281 c. 2. m Compare c. 39- 283 c. 3. See p. 557- 



569 

applicable, that is, before the creation — as* 
there was a time when God was neither 
Father nor Judge; which are also relative 
terms, implying the existence of a Son, and 
of sinners to be judged. "If we turn," he 
adds, " to Scripture, we shall find that, while 
the work of creation was carrying on, the 
language is always God said, God saw, not 
the Lord said, the Lord saw; but when it 
was completed, the title of Lord is intro- 
duced, the Lord God took man whom he had 
made" 

Tertullian 284 objects, in the first place, to 
the opinion of Hermogenes, respecting the 
eternity of matter, that its effect is to in- 
troduce two Gods. " You ascribe," he says, 
" eternity to matter, and thereby invest it 
with the attributes of the Deity. You join 
matter, with God in the work of creation ; 
for though you may pretend that eternity 
is the only attribute ascribed to matter, 
and that the supremacy is still reserved to 
God, — inasmuch as He is active and matter 
passive, and He it is who gives a form to 

284 cc. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 42. Compare de Praescriptione Haere- 
ticorum, c. 33. It is evident that Tertullian here draws conse- 
quences from the opinions of Hermogenes, which that Heretic 
himself disavowed. Compare c. 5. with adv. Marcionem, L. i. 
c. 3. 



570 

matter— yet this is a mere evasion; since 
the very foundation of your doctrine is, that 
matter existed independently of God, and 
consequently out of the range of his power. 
Nay 285 more, you make matter superior to 
God. He who grants assistance is surely su- 
perior, in that respect at least, to him to whom 
it is granted. But God, according to your 
doctrine, could not have made the universe 
without the assistance of matter. Had God 
possessed any dominion over matter, he would, 
before he employed it in the work of crea- 
tion, have purged it of the evil which he 
knew to exist in it. You are at least in 
this dilemma: you must either deny the Omni- 
potence of God, or admit that God was the 
author of evil by voluntarily using matter in 
the creation of the world. Yet you adopted 
this notion, respecting the eternity of matter, 
under the idea that you thereby removed from 
God the imputation of being the Author of 
evil. Like the other Heretics, you were blind 
to the defects of your own reasoning, and 
did not perceive that it really furnished no 
solution of the difficulty." 

Tertullian 286 proceeds to enquire whether 
the reasons, for which Hermogenes imputed 

285 cc> 8, 9, 10. 286 c. 11. 



571 

evil to matter, might not afford as good 
ground for imputing it to God himself. 
Among other arguments he urges the follow- 
ing: "If 287 matter is eternal, it is unchange- 
able in its nature ; and that nature, according 
to Hermogenes, is evil. How then could God 
create 288 that which is good out of evil mat- 
ter? Hermogenes ought rather to have said 9 
that matter was of a mixed character, both 
good and evil." " At least," Tertullian 289 con- 
tinues, " it is more honourable to God to 
make Him the free and voluntary Author 
of evil, than to make him as it were the 
slave of matter; and compelled to use it, 
although he knew it to be evil, in the work 
of creation." We 290 fmd incidental mention 
of an opinion entertained by some — that the 
existence of evil was necessary, in order to 
illustrate good by contrast — but Tertullian 
states that it was not entertained by Hermo- 
genes. Tertullian, 291 further argued, that by 
making matter self-existent and eternal, Her- 
mogenes placed it above the Word or Wis- 
dom; who, as begotten of God, had both an 
Author and beginning of his being. We have 
already 292 seen in what sense Tertullian as- 

287 cc. 12, 13. Hermogenes appears sometimes to have 
contended, that matter was neither good nor evil, c. 37. 

288 The reference is to Genesis i. 21. 

289 c , U> 290 c> 15< 291 C(% ^ lg# 292 p 55 g, 



572 

cribed a commencement of existence to the 
Word or Wisdom. 



Hermogenes endeavoured to support his 
opinions by appealing to Scripture. He 293 be- 
gan with the very first words of the Book of 
Genesis ; asserting that, by the expression, In 
the beginning, or as it is in the Latin, In prin- 
cipio, was meant some principle or substance 
out of which the heaven and earth were cre- 
ated: as it might be said, that the clay is the 
principle of the vessel which is made from it. 
Tertullian replies, that the words were only 
designed to mark the commencement of this 
visible frame of things. But not content with 
this sound explanation, he has recourse to 
others of a very different character : he sup- 
poses, 294 for instance, that the word principium 
may refer to the Wisdom of God, of whom it 
is said in the Book of Proverbs, 295 "Domi- 
nus condidit me initium viarum suarum in 
opera sua." If, however, this argument is 
weak, the praise of subtlety at least must be 
allowed to that which I am about to subjoin. 
In 296 every work, for example, in making 



a 



293 c. 19. 294 cc. 20, 21, 22. 

295 c. 8. ver. 22. The words of the English Version are, 
The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way. 

296 Tertullian urges an argument of a similar nature in 
c. 34. " It appears," he says, " from the Scriptures, that in 

the 



573 

a table, there must be a combination of three 
things — of him who makes — of that which is 
made — and of that out of which it is made. 
But in the account of the creation only two 
of these are mentioned — God the Creator — and 
the heavens and earth the thing created — we 
are not told out of what they were created; 
therefore, they were created out of nothing." 
Is there not here some confusion between what 
Johnson has called the positive and negative 
meanings of nothing? 

The next passage on which Hermogenes 
relied was also taken from the first Chapter 
of Genesis : m the earth was without form and 
void. The earth here spoken of was, accord- 
ing to him, the matter out of which the pre- 
sent earth and all other things were made. 
But we will not weary the reader's patience by 
detailing Tertullian's observations upon this and 
upon other portions of Scripture alleged by his 
opponent. Both are justly liable to the charge 
of drawing inferences which were never in- 
tended by the Sacred Writer. 

the final consummation of all things the universe will be 
reduced to nothing; we may, therefore, presume that it was 
created out of nothing." Hermogenes appears to have inter- 
preted the dissolution of the universe spiritually. 

297 c. 23. Tertullian's Latin is, Terra autem erat invisibilis 
et incomposita. 



574 

Having proved to his satisfaction that the 
universe was not created out of pre-existent 
matter, Tertullian 298 proceeds to notice the in- 
consistencies of which Hermogenes was guilty, 
with respect to his supposed matter; saying 
at one time, that it was neither corporeal nor 
incorporeal — " as if," 2 " observes Tertullian, 
"every thing in the universe must not fall 
under one or other of the two descriptions" — 
saying at 300 another that it was partly cor- 
poreal, and partly incorporeal — corporeal, 
because bodies are formed out of it ; incor- 
poreal, because it moves, and motion is in- 
corporeal. " But in what sense," asks Ter- 
tullian, " can motion be made a part of 
matter? Man moves; but we do not say he 
is partly corporeal and partly incorporeal, 

298 c. 35. 

299 Nisi fallor enini, omnis res aut corporalis aut incorpo- 
ralis sit necesse est, ut concedam interim esse aliquid incor- 
porale de substantiis duntaxat, quum ipsa substantia corpus sit 
rei cujusque. This passage was quoted in note 23. of Chap. III. 
Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicaense, Sect. 3. c. 10. p. 236. observes, 
Sed Tertulliano solenne est Deo corporales affectiones intrepide 
adscribere. Unde viri quidam docti existimarunt, revera sen- 
sisse Tertullianum, corporeas esse naturae Deum; a quibus 
tamen ego quidem dissentio. 

300 c. 36. The motion ascribed by Hermogenes to matter 
was of an irregular, turbulent kind, like the bubbling of boil- 
ing water in a pot. Sic enim et ollae undique ebullientis simi- 
litudinem opponis, c. 41. Materiam vero materiarum, non 
sibi subditam, non statu diversam, non motu inquietam, non 
habitu informem, c. 18. See also cc. 28, 42. 



575 

because he has both body and motion. His. 
actions, passions, duties, appetites, are incor- 
poreal; but we do not call them parts or por- 
tions of his substance. Motion is not a 
substance, but a particular state of a substance. 
301 With equal inconsistency and absurdity 
Hermogenes sometimes says, that matter is 
neither good nor evil. Moreover he 302 assigns 
it a place below God; forgetting that, by 
assigning it a place, he assigns it limits, and 
thus admits that it is not infinite — an admis- 
sion at variance with all his previous reason- 
ing." 

Tertullian next alludes to a notion of 
Hermogenes, that God did not use the whole, 
but only a portion of this pre-existent mat- 
ter in the creation of the universe ; and 
notices various absurd consequences which, 
in his opinion, proceed from the doctrine 
of Hermogenes: 303 such as that good and 
evil are substances. He ridicules also the 
304 notion that God, in the work of creation, 



301 c. 37. 

302 cc. 38, 39, 40. Hermogenes seems to have contended 
that matter was infinite only in duration, that is, eternal ; not 
infinite in extent. 

303 c. 41. 

304 c. 44. Hermogenes illustrated his meaning by saying, 
that God brought order out of confused and indigested matter 

by 



576 

performed no other act than that of merely 
appearing and drawing near to matter; "as 
if," he observes, " there ever was a time when 
God did not appear or draw near to matter. 
On this supposition not only matter, but the 
universe also, is eternal." Noli, continues Ter- 
tullian, ita Deo adulari, ut velis ilium solo 
visu et solo accessu tot ac tantas protulisse 
substantias et non propriis viribus instituisse — 
a sentiment for which he is severely repre- 
hended by 305 Bull; who says that he seems 
to have cared little what he said, if he did 
but contradict his adversary. 

Such were the speculations of Hermogenes 
on the eternity of matter, and such the argu- 
ments by which our author answered him. In 
one part of his reasoning he must be allowed 

by merely appearing or drawing near to it ; as beauty affects 
the mind of the spectator by its mere appearance, and the 
magnet attracts iron by mere approximation. At tu non inquis, 
pertransiens illam (materiam) facit (Deus) mundum, sed 
solummodo appropinquans ei, sicut facit quis decor solum- 
modo apparens, et magnes lapis solummodo appropinquans. 
Quid simile Deus fabricans mundum, et decor vulnerans 
animum, aut magnes adtrahens ferrum? 

305 Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, Sect. 3. c. 10. p. 236. Tertullian 
afterwards says on the same subject, Non apparentis (Dei) 
solummodo, nee adpropinquantis ; sed adhibentis tantos animi 
sui nisus, Sophiam, valentiam, sensum, sermonem, Spiritum, 
virtutem, c. 45. Compare Warburton, Sermon 2. Vol. IX. 
p. 39. But what shall we say, &c. He appears rather to 
lean to Tertullian's opinion. 



577 

to have been successful — in shewing that the 
theory of his opponent removed none of the 
difficulties in which the question respecting 
the origin of evil is involved. He has also 
given no slight proof of discretion — a quality 
for which he is not generally remarkable— in 
not attempting himself to advance any counter- 
theory upon that inexplicable subject. 

In conformity with the opinions already 
detailed, Hermogenes maintained that the hu- 
man soul was made out of matter. This 
notion Tertullian confuted in an express Trea- 
tise, entitled 306 de Censu Anima, concerning 
the origin of the soul, which is not now ex- 
tant. In our account of Marcion we stated 
that Tertullian charged that Heretic with de- 
nying the freedom of the Will. We founded 
this statement on the following passage, 307 in 
the Tract de Anima, in which the name of 
Hermogenes is coupled with that of Marcion. 
Inesse autem nobis to avre^ovcnov naturaliter 
jam et Marcioni ostendimus et Hermogeni. 
On this passage 308 Lardner observes, "Tertul- 

306 De solo censu animae congressus Hermogeni, quatenus 
et istum ex materiae potius suggestu, quam ex Dei flatu con- 
stitisse praesumpsit. De Anima, c. 1. See also cc. 3, 11. and 
de Monogamia, c. lo\ 

3 °7 c. 21. :508 History of Heretics, c. 18. Sect. $i 

O o 



578 

lian asserted human liberty; and I think he 
does not deny it to have been held by Mar- 
cion and Hermogenes." He appears to have 
forgotten that he had 309 before referred to this 
very passage as furnishing proof, that the Mar- 
cionites did not allow the freedom of human 
actions — but were believers in a kind of ne- 
cessity. The zeal of Tertullian against Her- 
mogenes was doubtless quickened by the bold- 
ness with which that Heretic 310 asserted the 
lawfulness of second marriages. In 3n one place 
Hermogenes is connected with Nigidius, of 
whom nothing more is known. 

Besides the Heretics enumerated by Mo- 
sheim in his history of the second century, 
Tertullian mentions some who belonged to 
the first. He speaks of 312 Simon Magus; and 
313 repeats the story, which had been handed 
down by Justin Martyr and Ireneeus, that a 
statue had been erected to Simon at Home, 
bearing an inscription in which his „ divinity 
was recognized. In the 314 Tracts de Idolola- 
tria and de 515 Praescriptione Heereticorum, 

309 History of Heretics, c. 10. Sect. 15. 

310 Adv. Hermogenem, c. 1. de Monogamia, c. 16. 

311 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. SO. 

313 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, cc. 10, 33. 

313 Apology, c. 13. 31i c. 9. 

316 c. 33. 



579 

allusions are found to his practice pf 
magic." His 316 disciples pretended that by 
their magical arts they could call up the souls 
of the deceased Prophets. In the 517 Treatise 
de Anima, it is said that Simon, indignant 
at the reproof which he received , from 
St Peter, determined in revenge to oppose 
the progress of the Gospel ; and associated with 
himself in the undertaking a Tyrian prosti- 
tute, named Helena. He called himself the 
Supreme Father ; Helena his first conception, 
through whom he formed the design of cre- 
ating the Angels and Archangels. She, how- 
ever, becoming acquainted with the design, 
went out from the Father into the lower 
parts of the universe ; and there, anticipating 
his intention, created the angelic powers, who 
were ignorant of the Father, and were the 
318 artificers of this world. They detained her 
with them through envy ; lest, if she went 
away, they should be deemed the offspring 
of another — that is, as I interpret the words— 
not self-existent. Not content with detaining 
her, they subjected her to every species of in- 
dignity, in order that the consciousness of her 
humiliation might extinguish even the wish 

316 De Anima, c. 57. 317 c. 34. 

318 Instead of artificis, we must vead artifices, as is evident 
from the corresponding passage in Tremens, L. i. c 20. 



580 

to quit them. Thus she was compelled to take 
the human form ; to be confined, as it were, 
in the bonds of the flesh, and to pass through 
different female bodies ; among the rest through 
that of the Spartan Helen, until at length 
she appeared as the Helena of Simon. She 
was the lost sheep mentioned in the parable, 
whom Simon descended to recover and restore 
to heaven. Having effected his purpose, he 
determined in revenge to deliver mankind 
from the dominion of the angelic powers; 
and in order to elude their vigilance, he pre- 
tended to assume the human form, appearing 
as the Son in Judea, as the Father in Samaria. 
On this strange account it will be sufficient 
to remark that it is taken almost verbatim from 
Ireneeus. 

Tertullian 319 mentions Menander, the Sa- 
maritan, as the disciple of Simon Magus, and 
the master of Saturninus. One 320 of his as- 
sertions was, that he was sent by the Supreme 
and Secret Power, to make all who received 
his Baptism, immortal and incorruptible: in 
other words, his Baptism was itself the re- 

319 De Anima, c. 23. 

320 De Anima, c. 50. from which passage we also learn 
that Menander dissuaded his followers from encountering 
martyrdom. 



o81 

surrection, and delivered all who partook of 
it from liability to death. Another 321 of his 
opinions was, that the human body was cre- 
ated by Angels. Tertullian mentions 322 the 
Nicolaitans ; but says nothing respecting them, 
which may not be immediately inferred from 
the 323 Book of Revelations. 

There is a passage in the 324 Tract de Re- 
surrectione Carnis, in which, if the reading is 
correct, Tertullian speaks of Heretics who 
asserted the mortality of the soul. 

In the Tract 325 de Jejuniis our author men- 
tions another Heretic of his own day, (apud 
Jovem, hodiernum de Pythagora riser eticum) 
who borrowed his tenets from the Pythagorean 
philosophy. 

To this account of the particular Heresies 
mentioned by Tertullian, we will subjoin a 
few observations collected from his works, 
which apply generally to them all. We have 

321 De Res. Carnis, c. 5. 

322 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 33. Adv. Marcio- 
nem, L. i. c. 29- De Pudicitia, c. 19. 

323 c. 2. vv. 15, 20. 

324 Quanquam in hac materia admittamus interdum morta- 
litatem animae assignari ab Hzereticis, c. 18. 

325 c. 15. 



582 

326 seen that he traces their origin to the 
Grecian philosophy, and 527 conceives that their 
existence was ordained or permitted by God, 
in order to prove the faith of Christians. 
In the 528 Tract de Praescriptione Haereticorum 
he draws a very unfavourable picture of the 
Heretics in general, and of their modes of 
proceeding. He says that their practice, like 
their faith, was without gravity, authority, or 
discipline — that all was confusion amongst 
them — that they received indiscriminately every 
person who came to them, however different 
his opinions from their own ; the mere fact 
that he joined in opposing the truth being a 
sufficient recommendation to their favour — 
that they were puffed up with the conceit 
of their own knowledge, all being in their 
own estimation competent to instruct others, 
and even their women exercising the minis- 
terial functions — that they conferred orders 
without previous enquiry into the qualifica- 
tions of the candidates. Passing from their 
practice to their doctrine, he says that their 
object was to destroy, not to build up; to 

326 p. 4?2. Tertullian supposed that the founders of the 
different heresies were led astray by the suggestion of the 
devil and his evil spirits. De Praescriptione Haereticorum,, 
c. 40. Apology, c. 47- 

327 Chap. V. p. 34-3. De Praescriptione Haereticorum, cc. 
2, 3, 5, 39. 32S cc. 41, 42. 



583 

unsettle, not to instruct; to pervert the Or- 
thodox, not to convert the Gentiles : — that' 
there was no agreement among them, each 
following his own fancies and despising his 
superiors — that many of them were even 
without assemblies for public worship. 329 An- 
other charge which he brings against them on 
the subject of doctrine is, that, from consci- 
ousness of the weakness of their cause, they 
purposely argued in an inverted and per- 
plexed manner. 530 With respect to their 
morals, he accuses them of holding inter- 
course with fortune-tellers and astrologers, 
and of acting as if they were released from 
all moral obligation. He charges 331 those 
Heretics in particular, who denied the resur- 
rection of the body, with leading sensual and 
vicious lives. That many of the accusations 
brought by. him against the Heretics were 
true, cannot, we think, be reasonably doubted ; 

329 De Res. Carnis, c. 2. Adv. Praxeam, c. 20. De Pudi- 
citia, c. 8. c. 16. sub fine. In the Tract against Hermogenes, 
ce. 19,27- Tertullian accuses the Heretics of torturing the 
words of Scripture, and obscuring the plainest passages by 
their subtleties and refinements. 

330 De Praescriptione Haereticorum., c. 43. 

331 De Res. Carnis, c. 11. In the Tract de Pcenitentia, 
c. 5. Tertullian mentions certain persons (he does not call 
them Heretics) who held that God was to be worshipped with 
the heart and mind, not by outward acts ; and under this per- 
suasion thought that they might sin with impunity. 



584 

but there seems to be as little doubt that 
some rested on no solid foundation, and that 
others were grossly exaggerated. "We should 
not," to borrow 332 Jortin's words, "trust too 
much to the representations which Christians 
after the Apostolic age have given of the 
Heretics of their times. Proper abatements 
must be made for credulity, zeal, resentment, 
mistake, and exaggeration." 333 It appears that 
the Heretics were in the habit of appealing, 
in confirmation of the truth of their tenets, to 
the miraculous powers exerted by the founders 
of their respective sects. 

We shall conclude the present Chapter by 
a remark which the subject naturally sug- 
gests. The Roman Catholics are in the habit 
of urging the divisions among Protestants, 
as an argument against Protestantism ; and 
their own pretended freedom from dissen- 
sions, as a proof that they compose the true 
Church. If this is a valid argument against 
Protestantism, the long catalogue of Heresies 
which have been just enumerated must fur- 
nish an equally valid argument against Christi- 
anity itself. But the divisions which arose, 

332 Discourses concerning the truth of the Christian Re* 
ligion, p. 72. 3rd Ed. 

333 De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 44. 



585 

both among the early proselytes to the Gos- 
pel and the early Reformers, were the natural 
consequences of the change effected in the 
condition of mankind by the new light which 
had burst upon their minds. Their former 
trains of thinking were interrupted — their 
former principles to a certain extent un- 
settled — they were to enter upon a new and 
enlarged field of speculation and of action. 
When, therefore, we consider how many sources 
of disagreement existed in their passions and 
prejudices — in the variety of their tempers 
and the opposition of their interests — it can- 
not be matter of surprise that all did not 
consent to walk in the same path, or that 
truth was occasionally sacrificed to the ambi- 
tion of founding a sect. 



It was originally the author's intention to 
add some observations upon the quotations 
and interpretations of Scripture, in Tertul- 
lian's works ; but the present volume has 
already exceeded the limits within which he 
purposed to confine it, and he must conse- 
quently defer those observations to a future 
opportunity. 



Pp 



ADDENDA, 



64. note 133. Dr. Neander observes, that the Tract de 
Spe Fidelium is mentioned by Jerome in Ezechielem, 
c. 36. 

130. note 74. add, compare de Cultu Fceminarum, L. ii. c. 11. 

Ac si necessitas amicitiarum omciorumque gentilium 
vos vocat, &c. ; from which it appears, that the Christ- 
ians did not think themselves called upon to inter- 
rupt their former friendships, much less to break 
off all intercourse with the heathen. 

131. line last but one, for charity read chastity. 

236. 1. 6. add, in the Tract de Jejuniis, c. 17- we find an 
allusion to the practice of allotting a double portion 
to the Presidents in the Feasts of Charity, founded 
on a misapplication of 1 Tim. v. 17' Ad elogium 
guise tuae pertinet, quod duplex apud te Prsesidentibus 
honor binis partibus deputatur ; quum Apostolus dupli- 
cem honorem dederit, ut et fratribus et praepositis. 

254. note 74. add, Et tamen ejusmodi neque congregant neque 
participant nobiscum, facti per delicta denuo vestri : 
quando ne illis quidem misceamur, quos vestra vis 
atque saevitia ad negandum subegit. Ad Nationes, 
L. i. c. 5. 

270. note 76. With respect to the reading of Rom. viii. 3. 
Dr. Neander has pointed out two passages, de Res. 
Carnis, c. 46. and de Pudicitia, c. 17' in which Ter- 
tullian^ has damnavit or damnaverit delinquentiam in 
carne. 

277« note 47- add, compare de Monogamia, c. 10. where Ter- 
tullian's reasoning proceeds on the supposition that 
we shall recognise our relations and friends in "a 
future state. 



ADDENDA, &C. 587 

Page 

323. (319. first Edition.) Lord King, in his Critical History 
of the Apostles' Creed, infers from a passage in tKe 
Tract de Baptismo, c. 6. that a recognition of the 
Holy Catholic Church, formed a part of the pro- 
fession of faith made by the candidates for baptism. 
Quum autem sub tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio 
salutis pignerentur, necessario adjicitur Ecclesice men- 
tio : quoniam ubi tres, id est Pater et Filius et Spi- 
ritus Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia quae trium corpus est. 
The same noble writer considers the Communion of 
Saints as merely an Appendix to the preceding clause, 
the Holy Catholic Church, and understands by the 
expression, the mutual society and fellowship which 
subsisted between particular Churches and between 
their members. To this fellowship, Tertullian's writ- 
ings contain frequent allusions; and the external 
marks of this fellowship are expressed in the fol- 
lowing passage from the Tract de Praescriptione 
Hcereticorum, c. 20. Communicatio pacis, et appel- 
latio fraternitatis, et contesseratio hospitalitatis,- quae 
jura non alia ratio regit, quam ejusdem sacramenti 
una traditio; where in the expression contesseratio 
hospitalitatis, Tertullian refers to the commendatory 
letters, on the production of which members of one 
Christian community, when travelling abroad, were 
hospitably received, and allowed to communicate by 
the members of other communities. 

338. note 193. (p. 334,. note 191. first Edition) add, Ethnici, 
quos penes nulla est veritatis plenitudo, quia nee 
doctor veritatis Deus, &c. De Spectaculis, c. 21. 

366'. note 26l. The reference to de Res. Carnis, c. 26. (not 
c. 62.) is misplaced; it should have followed the 
word copia in the last line but one. 

412. note 20. (p. 408. first Edition) add, In further proof, that 
in Tertullian's time, the Lord's Day was deemed a day 
of rejoicing, see the Tract de Corona, c. 11. Jam 
stationes aut ulli magis faciet quam Christo? aut 
et dominico die, quando nee Christo? 

414. I have said, that Tertullian makes no allusion to the 
Paschal Controversy. The passage in the work en- 
titled Praedestinatus, (c. 26.) escaped me, in which 



588 ADDENDA, &C. 

Page 

the author quotes Tertullian as affirming, in his reply: 
to Soter, Bishop of Rome, and to Apollonius, that 
the Montanists kept Easter according to the Roman 
custom. Dr. Neander refers, in confirmation of this 
statement, to the Tract adversus Judaeos, c. 8. sub fine, 
where Tertullian says, that Christ was sacrificed on 
the first day of unleavened bread, on the evening 
of which the Jews killed the Paschal Lamb. Ter- 
tullian must, therefore, have supposed that the last 
meal which Christ ate with his disciples was not 
the , Paschal Feast — a supposition at variance with 
the Asiatic mode of celebrating Easter. 

452. note 128. (p. 448. first Edition) add, Apology, c. 30. 
Ad Scapulam, c. 2. 

544. note 220. (p. 540. first Edition) add, Adv. Marcionem, 
L. ii. c 27- 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



